Porter v. Hartigan

• Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
• Decided: September 1, 1999
• Docket: 98-1458
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT] United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

No. 98-1458

DAVID S. PORTER AND CAROL A. PORTER,

Plaintiffs, Appellants,

v.

KEVIN M. HARTIGAN, ET AL.,

Defendants, Appellees.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[Hon. Edward F. Harrington, U.S. District Judge]

Before

Boudin, Circuit Judge, Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge, and Lynch, Circuit Judge.

David S. Porter and Carol A. Porter on brief pro se. Philip X. Murray on brief for appellees.

August 30, 1999

Per Curiam. We have considered the parties' briefs and the record on appeal. We review the grant of summary judgment de novo, using the same standard as required of the district court. Catex Vitol Gas, Inc. v. Wolfe, 178 F.3d 572, 576 (1st Cir. 1999). The defendants are not liable under 42 U.S.C. 1983 because the state statute authorizing the attachment has not been found unconstitutional. See Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922 (1982) (holding that private parties who attached a debtor's assets pursuant to a state attachment statute were subject to 1983 liability if the statute was constitutionally infirm); Digital Equipment Corp. v. Currie Enterprises, 142 F.R.D. 16, 26 (D. Mass. 1992) (finding the state attachment statute constitutional). The lack of viability of the only federally-based claim supports the dismissal of the remaining state-based claims. Brennan v. Hendrigan, 888 F.2d 189, 196 (1st Cir. 1989). Further, the appellants have not persuaded us that there was either error or abuse of discretion in the district court's refusal to amend the order dismissing the defendant Beatrice from the case. Affirmed.