Murray v. Penobscot County DA

USCA1 Opinion









July 12, 1994
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________


No. 93-2024

GREGORY T. MURRAY,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

PENOBSCOT COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ET AL.,

Defendants, Appellees.


____________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

[Hon. Morton A. Brody, U.S. District Judge]
___________________

____________________

Before

Torruella, Boudin and Stahl,
Circuit Judges.
______________

____________________

Gregory T. Murray on brief pro se.
_________________
Jeffrey M. Silverstein, Assistant District Attorney, on brief for
______________________
appellee R. Christopher Almy, District Attorney County of Penobscot.
Paul W. Chaiken, Michael A. Hodgins, and Rudman & Winchell on
________________ ___________________ __________________
brief for appellee Bangor Police Department.


____________________


____________________



















Per Curiam. Murray appeals from the dismissal of
__________

his 1983 complaint filed against the Penobscot County

District Attorney and the Bangor Police Department. We

affirm substantially for the reasons stated in the magistrate

judge's August 23, 1933 recommended decision, adding these

comments.

1. We agree that the district attorney was immune

from damages liability with respect to his decision not to

prosecute appellant. Harrington v. Almy, 977 F.2d 37, 40
___________________

(1st Cir. 1992).

2. We turn to appellant's false arrest, illegal

detainment, and illegal search and seizure claims against the

police department. Citing to Monell v. Department of Social
_______________________________

Services, 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978), the magistrate's report
________

correctly informed Murray that these claims were subject to

dismissal because liability could not be imposed absent

allegations that the harm was inflicted pursuant to an

official policy or custom. Despite that notice, Murray made

no attempt to correct the complaint's deficiency. There

simply are no allegations, as there must be to sustain a

1983 suit, linking a department policy or custom with any

constitutional violation. Monell, 436 U.S. at 691-94; see
______ ___

also Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 385 (1989); Bordanaro v.
____ _________ ______ ____________

McLeod, 871 F.2d 1151, 1157 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 493
______ _____ ______

U.S. 820 (1989). Because the magistrate's report provided



















appellant with sufficient notice of his complaint's

deficiencies, and because appellant failed timely to correct

those inadequacies, the complaint was properly dismissed.

Purvis v. Ponte, 929 F.2d 822, 826-27 (1st Cir. 1991) (
________________

1915(d) dismissal did not violate Neitzke v. Williams, 490
____________________

U.S. 319 (1989), where magistrate's report gave plaintiff

notice of his complaint's factual deficiencies and an

opportunity to cure).

Affirmed.
________



































-3-