August 20, 1993
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
No. 93-1140
NAZZARO SCARPA,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
JOSEPH DESMOND,
Defendant, Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Breyer, Chief Judge,
Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
Nazzaro Scarpa on brief pro se.
A. John Pappalardo, United States Attorney, and Suzanne E.
Durrell, Assistant United States Attorney, on Memorandum in Support of
Appellee's Motion for Summary Disposition, for appellee.
Per Curiam. Upon review of the parties' briefs and the
record on appeal, we find no error in the district court's
dismissal of plaintiff's complaint based on the reasons set
forth in the defendant's memorandum. We add only that, in
any event, plaintiff's allegation that the defendant
committed perjury, even accepted as true for purposes of the
motion to dismiss, does not support a civil rights claim for
damages. See Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) (holding
that a police officer witness is entitled to absolute
immunity against a 1983 claim; alleged perjury at trial);
Kyricopoulos v. Town of Orleans, 967 F.2d 14, 16 (1st Cir.
1992) (same; alleged perjury before grand jury and at trial);
see also Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 504 (1978) (stating
that, for purposes of immunity law, there is no distinction
between suits brought against state officials under 1983
and suits brought directly under the Constitution against
federal officials).
Affirmed.