[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
No. 96-1805
ROBERT E. BRADLEY,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES VETERANS ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant, Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE
[Hon. D. Brock Hornby, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Selya, Boudin and Lynch,
Circuit Judges.
Robert E. Bradley on brief pro se.
Jay P. McCloskey, United States Attorney, David R. Collins and
Margaret D. McGaughey, Assistant United States Attorneys, on Motion
for Summary Affirmance for appellee.
January 22, 1997
Per Curiam. Pro se plaintiff Robert Bradley, an
incarcerated felon, appeals a district court judgment that
dismissed his action challenging the Veterans
Administration's decision to reduce his disability benefits
pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 5513(a)(1)(requiring temporary
reduction of veterans' benefits paid to incarcerated felons).
The district court dismissed Bradley's complaint on the
grounds that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under 38
U.S.C. 511(a), 7252(a). After thoroughly reviewing the
record and the parties' briefs on appeal, we conclude that
the district court order is clearly correct.
Bradley's complaint seeks to reverse the Veterans
Administration's decision to reduce his benefits based on his
status as an incarcerated felon. The district court is
prohibited from asserting jurisdiction over such claims by 38
U.S.C. 511, and it is well established that Bradley may not
circumvent this prohibition by asserting constitutional
claims. See, e.g., Zuspann v. Brown, 60 F.3d 1156, 1159 (5th
Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 909 (1996); Sugrue v.
Derwinski, 26 F.3d 8, 11 (2d Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 115 S.
Ct. 2245 (1995); Larrabee by Jones v. Derwinski, 968 F.2d
1497, 1500-01 (2d Cir. 1992); Hicks v. Veterans
Administration, 961 F.2d 1367, 1370 (8th Cir. 1992); Tietjen
v. U.S. Veterans Administration, 884 F.2d 514, 515 (9th Cir.
1989); Milliken v. Gleason, 332 F.2d 122, 123 (1st Cir.
-2-
1964), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 1002 (1965). Rather, Bradley's
sole remedy is through the procedures established by the
Veterans Judicial Review Act, Pub. Law No. 100-687, 102 Stat.
4105 (1988). See Hall v. U.S. Dept. of Veterans Affairs, 85
F.3d 532, 535 (11th Cir. 1996)(per curiam).
Bradley's contention that 38 U.S.C. 511(a) violates
Article III and his right of access to the courts is
frivolous. See Marozsan v. United States, 90 F.3d 1284, 1288
(7th Cir. 1996). Accordingly, the judgment of dismissal is
summarily affirmed. See Local Rule 27.1.
-3-