USCA1 Opinion
May 4, 1993
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 92-2189
BERENICE MARY GORCZAKOSKI,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
Defendant, Appellee.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Rya W. Zobel, U.S. District Judge]
___________________
____________________
Before
Torruella, Cyr and Boudin,
Circuit Judges.
______________
____________________
Berenice Mary Gorczakoski on brief pro se.
_________________________
A. John Pappalardo, United States Attorney, William L. Parker,
___________________ __________________
Assistant United States Attorney, Judith E. Kramer, Deputy Solicitor
_________________
of Labor, James D. Henry, Associate Solicitor, Beverly I. Dankowitz,
_______________ ____________________
Attorney, and Andrea S. Grill, Attorney, United States Department of
_______________
Labor, on Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Disposition, for
appellee.
____________________
____________________
Per Curiam. We find no abuse of discretion in the
___________
district court's dismissal of the instant complaint as
"frivolous" under 28 U.S.C. 1915(d). See, e.g., Denton v.
___ ____ ______
Hernandez, 112 S. Ct. 1728, 1734 (1992) ( 1915(d) dismissal
_________
properly reviewed for abuse of discretion); Neitzke v.
_______
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) (complaint is frivolous
________
"where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact");
Watson v. Caton, 984 F.2d 537, 539 (1st Cir. 1993). It is
______ _____
uncontested that defendant, upon determining that it lacked
jurisdiction over the matter, transferred plaintiff's
complaint to the EEOC. Plaintiff has provided no reason to
suggest that these actions were other than in full
conformance with applicable law. See, e.g., 29 C.F.R.
___ ____
1691.5 (1992). And even if it were otherwise, we perceive no
arguable basis for subjecting defendant to liability as a
result of any improprieties in its processing of plaintiff's
complaint. See, e.g., Francis-Sobel v. University of Maine,
___ ____ _____________ ____________________
597 F.2d 15, 18 (1st Cir.) (EEOC's alleged mishandling of
grievance did not "support the implication of a damage
remedy"), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 949 (1979); see also Johnson
____________ ________ _______
v. Rodriguez, 943 F.2d 104, 108-09 (1st Cir.) (alleged
_________
irregularities in processing of complaint by state
antidiscrimination commission did not implicate due process
interest), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 949 (1992). As we find
____________
no reason to believe that the deficiencies in the instant
complaint "could be remedied through more specific pleading,"
Denton, 112 S. Ct. at 1734, dismissal under 1915(d) was
______
warranted.
Affirmed.
________
-3-