[NOT FOR PUBLICATION–NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 00-1573
DAVID MICHAUD,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
N. WILLIAM DELKNER; SUSAN G. MORRELL; PETER K. ODOM;
TINA NADEAU; LINCOLN SOLDATI; RICHARD GIGUERE; MARC DELLNER,
Defendants, Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
[Hon. Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr., U.S. District Judge]
Before
Selya, Circuit Judge,
Campbell and Bownes, Senior Circuit Judges.
David Michaud on brief pro se.
Donald E. Gardner and Devine, Millimet & Branch on brief for
appellees Marc Dellner and Richard Giguere.
Robert L. Hermann, Jr. and McNeill & Taylor, P.A. on brief
for appellees Susan G. Morrell, Peter K. Odom, and Lincoln
Soldati.
March 8, 2001
Per Curiam. Pro se appellant David Michaud appeals
from the dismissal of his claim that defendants engaged in
acts constituting obstruction of justice under 18 U.S.C. §
1503, thereby violating the Racketeering Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq.
In a report and recommendation dated March 8, 2000,
Magistrate Judge James Muirhead recommended dismissal of an
initial complaint filed by appellant for failure to state a
claim for relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) & (b) (providing
for dismissal on preliminary review of prisoner complaints
against government officers or employees if the complaints
do not state a claim for relief). In doing so, the
magistrate judge suggested that it would be futile to amend
the complaint to assert a RICO claim alleged in a
supplemental complaint filed by the appellant. After
considering appellant's objection, District Judge Joseph
DiClerico approved the recommendation and dismissed the
complaint in an order dated March 27, 2000. We affirm.
On appeal, Michaud argues that he adequately
alleged a RICO pattern of racketeering based on defendants'
-2-
past and ongoing obstruction of justice, but we disagree.
The facts he asserted either failed to show conduct that
would constitute obstruction of justice, or failed to
describe conduct that would be indictable under 18 U.S.C. §
1503. See O'Malley v. New York City Transit Authority, 896
F.2d 704, 708 (2d Cir. 1990) (rejecting RICO claim
predicated on obstruction of justice under 18 U.S.C. § 1503
where alleged obstruction occurred in state and not federal
courts).
Affirmed.
-3-