[NOT FOR PUBLICATION–NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 00-2095
DANNY M. KELLY,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
TOWN OF CHELMSFORD, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Rya W. Zobel, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Selya, Circuit Judge,
Campbell and Stahl, Senior Circuit Judges.
Danny M. Kelly on brief pro se.
Leonard H. Kesten, Deidre Brennan Regan and Brody, Hardoon,
Perkins & Kesten on brief for appellee Town of Chelmsford.
June 14, 2001
Per Curiam. After affording plaintiff an
opportunity to file an amended complaint which "clearly and
concisely" set forth his claims, and after two hearings on
the matter, the district court granted defendants' motions
to dismiss. Reviewing the dismissal de novo in light of the
briefs and the record, we see no error. The complaint
failed to understandably state a cognizable claim for relief
and some of the relief demanded was not within the court's
jurisdiction. Plaintiff's memorandum response to the
court's order to clarify suggested that plaintiff was unable
or unwilling to cure the deficiencies.
Affirmed.