May 18, 1993 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
No. 92-2188
BERENICE MARY GORCZAKOSKI,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
MASSACHUSETTS COMMISSION
AGAINST DISCRIMINATION,
Defendant, Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Rya W. Zobel, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Breyer, Chief Judge,
Torruella and Cyr, Circuit Judges.
Berenice Mary Gorczakoski on brief pro se.
George P. Napolitano, General Counsel, Massachusetts
Commission Against Discrimination, on brief 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). To the
extent plaintiff seeks review of defendant's finding of "no
probable cause," see Mass. G.L. c. 151B, 5-6, 9, the
district court plainly lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
And to the extent plaintiff seeks damages under 42 U.S.C.
1983 on account of (1) defendant's allegedly improper
processing of her claim or (2) its reaction to her office
visit in February 1992, it is clear that defendant is immune
under the Eleventh Amendment. See, e.g., Johnson v.
Rodriguez, 943 F.2d 104, 108-09 (1st Cir. 1991), cert.
denied, 112 S. Ct. 948 (1992).
Nor does it appear that the deficiencies in plaintiff's
complaint "could be remedied through more specific pleading."
Denton, 112 S. Ct. at 1734. In Johnson, a case involving
similar contentions against this same defendant, we held that
alleged improprieties in the handling of a grievance failed
to implicate a due process interest. 943 F.2d at 109-10; see
also Francis-Sobel v. University of Maine, 597 F.2d 15, 17-18
-2-
(1st Cir.) (EEOC finding of no reasonable cause does not give
rise to constitutional claim), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 949
(1979). And plaintiff's allegations as to her treatment by
unidentified personnel in defendant's office--conclusory
allegations which have received no elaboration on appeal--
fall well short of stating a constitutional violation. See
Watson, 984 F.2d at 540 ("The difference between failing to
state a claim and making a frivolous claim is in some
situations a question of degree.").
Affirmed.
-3-