Rupprecht v. City of Pittsfield

First Circuit

Rupprecht v. City of Pittsfield

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedMay 31, 2007

Docket06-2767

StatusPublished

This text of Rupprecht v. City of Pittsfield (Rupprecht v. City of Pittsfield) 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

Rupprecht v. City of Pittsfield, (1st Cir. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

No. 06-2767

WILLIAM RUPPRECHT,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

CITY OF PITTSFIELD, ET AL.,

Defendants, Appellees.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[Hon. Kenneth P. Neiman, U.S. Magistrate Judge]

Before

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

William Rupprecht on brief pro se. Nancy Frankel Pelletier and Robinson Donovan, P.C. on brief for appellees.

May 31, 2007 Per Curiam. After carefully considering the briefs and

record on appeal, we affirm the judgment below. McCord v. Horace

Mann Ins. Co., 390 F.3d 138 (1st Cir. 2004)(de novo review).

Among other problems, land-use conflicts rarely support

constitutional claims. Extreme circumstances are required to

support substantive due process or equal protection claims.

Exhaustion of state remedies is a prerequisite for procedural due

process and Fifth Amendment takings claims. SFW Arecibo, LTD v.

Rodriguez, 415 F.3d 135 (1st Cir. 2005). Appellant made no showing

that he satisfied any of these requirements.

Affirmed. See 1st Cir. R. 27.0(c).

-2-

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