Mattatall v. A.T. Wall

First Circuit

Mattatall v. A.T. Wall

34 F. App'x 5

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedMay 10, 2002

Docket01-2666

StatusPublished

This text of 34 F. App'x 5 (Mattatall v. A.T. Wall) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mattatall v. A.T. Wall, 34 F. App'x 5 (1st Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We grant the appellees’ motions to remove the default and for summary disposition, and we deny the appellant’s correlative motions. 1

After carefully considering the record and briefs on appeal, we affirm the lower court’s judgment substantially for the reasons stated below. The appellant failed to allege facts suggesting that the appellees engaged in intentional misconduct or acted with reckless or callous indifference to constitutional rights. Neither Appellee Wall’s status as correction’s director nor his alleged negligence in supervising and hiring prison staff suffices as a predicate for personal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Germany v. Vance, 868 F.2d 9, 17-19 (1st Cir.1989); Gutierrez-Rodriguez v. Cartagena, 882 F.2d 553, 560-62 (1st Cir.1989). Similarly, the appellant did not allege sufficient facts to state cognizable claims against the prison librarian or education director. By like token, he presented no proper basis for amending the complaint.

Affirmed. Loc. R. 27(c).

1

. The denied motions include the appellant’s motions for default judgment, summary judgment, and a writ of mandamus.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

We grant the appellees’ motions to remove the default and for summary disposition, and we deny the appellant’s correlative motions. 1

After carefully considering the record and briefs on appeal, we affirm the lower court’s judgment substantially for the reasons stated below. The appellant failed to allege facts suggesting that the appellees engaged in intentional misconduct or acted with reckless or callous indifference to constitutional rights. Neither Appellee Wall’s status as correction’s director nor his alleged negligence in supervising and hiring prison staff suffices as a predicate for personal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Germany v. Vance, 868 F.2d 9, 17-19 (1st Cir.1989); Gutierrez-Rodriguez v. Cartagena, 882 F.2d 553, 560-62 (1st Cir.1989). Similarly, the appellant did not allege sufficient facts to state cognizable claims against the prison librarian or education director. By like token, he presented no proper basis for amending the complaint.

Affirmed. Loc. R. 27(c).

1

. The denied motions include the appellant’s motions for default judgment, summary judgment, and a writ of mandamus.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 F. App'x 5, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mattatall-v-at-wall-ca1-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack