September 23, 1996 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
No. 96-1452
KEVIN ROBERT JAMES,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
ROCK WELCH, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE
[Hon. Morton A. Brody, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge,
Cyr and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
Kevin Robert James on brief pro se.
Christopher C. Taintor and Norman, Hanson & Detroy on brief for
appellees.
Per Curiam. Plaintiff's papers, liberally
construed, could be read as complaining about both the type
of dental treatment supplied (e.g., fillings versus
extraction) and the delay in furnishing it. It is clear from
plaintiff's appellate brief that he is no longer challenging
the decision to save his teeth rather than to extract them,
and plaintiff has instead redirected his focus on an
allegedly unconstitutional delay in furnishing treatment.
His complaint, however, failed to allege that the named
defendants were responsible for the delay. In short,
plaintiff failed adequately to allege deliberate indifference
on the part of the named defendants. The magistrate-judge's
report alerted plaintiff to the deficiency in general terms
and, effectively, afforded plaintiff an opportunity to
supplement his pleadings. When plaintiff's objections to the
magistrate-judge's report failed to cure the deficiency, the
court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the
complaint. See Purvis v. Ponte, 929 F.2d 822, 826-27 (1st
Cir. 1991) (upholding 1915(d) dismissal of a factually
inadequate complaint where plaintiff failed, despite notice,
to remedy the omissions).
Plaintiff contends he should have been afforded
discovery. We disagree. Plaintiff failed to allege enough
to warrant discovery. Plaintiff claimed to have copies of
his medical request slips and responses to them, yet he
-2-
failed to state, for example, to whom he reported his pain,
when, and what the response (or lack of response) was.
Affirmed. Loc. R. 27.1.
-3-