Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter
Citation Limited Pursuant to 1st Cir. Loc. R. 32.3
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 03-1409
BERT J. ALLEN, III,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
YORK COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE
[Hon. Gene Carter, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Boudin, Chief Judge,
Lynch and Howard, Circuit Judges.
Bert J. Allen, III on brief pro se.
Michael J. Schmidt and Wheeler & Arey, P.A. on brief for
appellees.
September 22, 2003
Per Curiam. Bert Allen III appeals pro se from the
district court's dismissal of his complaint, upon the
recommendation of a magistrate judge, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(c). Allen filed his complaint against the York County
Sheriff's Department, Sheriff Philip Cote and "other unknown
officers" under various provisions of the civil rights statutes, 42
U.S.C. §§ 1981 et seq., seeking damages for alleged violations of
his constitutional rights that occurred between during his
confinement as a pretrial detainee at the York County Jail in
Sanford, Maine.
The central allegations in the complaint involve an
incident in which Allen was allegedly attacked, knocked unconscious
and sexually assaulted by an inmate at the behest of corrections
officers. Allen asserts that defendants engaged in a conspiracy to
cover up this incident and impeded his efforts to seek redress
through the administrative grievance process. Allen also claims
that, on another occasion, defendants incited inmates to attack him
and a group of other pretrial detainees. Thus instigated, Allen
asserts that the inmates began to throw rocks and pieces of
pavement, one of which struck Allen in the eye. Allen further
contends that the investigation of both incidents was inadequate.
Finally, Allen asserts that his medication was routinely stolen,
that his reports of the theft went unheeded, and that defendants
engaged in a conspiracy to cover up this conduct.
-2-
After the magistrate judge issued a recommended decision
concluding that the complaint should be dismissed, Allen filed
objections which unequivocally stated that he wished to "drop" his
claims against the York County Sheriff's Department and Sheriff
Cote, "leaving . . . correctional officers unknown[.]" In light of
this concession, we conclude that Allen has waived review of his
claims against the Sheriff's Department and Sheriff Cote. We add
only that, to the extent the district court failed to expressly
address Allen's claim for relief under provisions other than § 1983
(e.g., 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1985 and 1988), Allen's factual
allegations were insufficient to state a claim for such relief.
Any remaining claims against "correctional officers unknown" were
also properly dismissed.
We note that Allen has raised a host of additional issues
on appeal, many of which (e.g., challenges to various aspects of
the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997(e), and the
district court's denial of a request to amend the complaint in a
companion case to add a claim for expungement of Allen's criminal
record) are far beyond the scope of the current appeal. To the
extent Allen challenges the district court's discovery rulings, the
denial of his request for appointed counsel and contends that the
district court improperly decided disputed issues of fact, his
claims are meritless.
-3-
The judgment of the district court is summarily affirmed.
See Loc. R. 27(c).
-4-