May 4, 1993
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
No. 92-2189
BERENICE MARY GORCZAKOSKI,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
Defendant, Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Rya W. Zobel, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Torruella, Cyr and Boudin,
Circuit Judges.
Berenice Mary Gorczakoski on brief pro se.
A. John Pappalardo, United States Attorney, William L. Parker,
Assistant United States Attorney, Judith E. Kramer, Deputy Solicitor
of Labor, James D. Henry, Associate Solicitor, Beverly I. Dankowitz,
Attorney, and Andrea S. Grill, Attorney, United States Department of
Labor, on Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Disposition, for
appellee.
Per Curiam. We find no abuse of discretion in the
district court's dismissal of the instant complaint as
"frivolous" under 28 U.S.C. 1915(d). See, e.g., Denton v.
Hernandez, 112 S. Ct. 1728, 1734 (1992) ( 1915(d) dismissal
properly reviewed for abuse of discretion); Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) (complaint is frivolous
"where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact");
Watson v. Caton, 984 F.2d 537, 539 (1st Cir. 1993). It is
uncontested that defendant, upon determining that it lacked
jurisdiction over the matter, transferred plaintiff's
complaint to the EEOC. Plaintiff has provided no reason to
suggest that these actions were other than in full
conformance with applicable law. See, e.g., 29 C.F.R.
1691.5 (1992). And even if it were otherwise, we perceive no
arguable basis for subjecting defendant to liability as a
result of any improprieties in its processing of plaintiff's
complaint. See, e.g., Francis-Sobel v. University of Maine,
597 F.2d 15, 18 (1st Cir.) (EEOC's alleged mishandling of
grievance did not "support the implication of a damage
remedy"), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 949 (1979); see also Johnson
v. Rodriguez, 943 F.2d 104, 108-09 (1st Cir.) (alleged
irregularities in processing of complaint by state
antidiscrimination commission did not implicate due process
interest), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 949 (1992). As we find
no reason to believe that the deficiencies in the instant
complaint "could be remedied through more specific pleading,"
Denton, 112 S. Ct. at 1734, dismissal under 1915(d) was
warranted.
Affirmed.
-3-