USCA1 Opinion
April 5, 1995 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 94-2032
ERIC DAVIS,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Defendant, Appellee.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
[Hon. Martin F. Loughlin, Senior U.S. District Judge] __________________________
____________________
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________
Cyr and Stahl, Circuit Judges. ______________
____________________
Eric Davis on brief pro se. __________
Jeffrey R. Howard, Attorney General, and Lucy C. Hodder, ___________________ _________________
Assistant Attorney General, on brief for appellee.
____________________
____________________
Per Curiam. Eric Davis, a New Hampshire inmate, __________
brought this action under 42 U.S.C. 1983 alleging that his
due process rights had been violated in connection with a
prison reclassification hearing. From an award of summary
judgment for defendants (who are two classification board
members sued in their personal capacities), he now appeals.
Plaintiff's contention that material facts remain in dispute
proves mistaken. Although we read the record and indulge all
inferences in a light most favorable to the non-moving party,
see, e.g., Vasapolli v. Rostoff, 39 F.3d 27, 32 (1st Cir. ___ ____ _________ _______
1994), "the adverse party cannot defeat a well-supported
motion"--as plaintiff has attempted to do here--"by
'rest[ing] upon the mere allegations or denials of [his]
pleading.'" Data General Corp. v. Grumman Systems Support ___________________ ________________________
Corp., 36 F.3d 1147, 1159 (1st Cir. 1994) (quoting Fed. R. _____
Civ. P. 56(e)). As a result, defendants' evidence--to the
effect that the reclassification hearing was held on November
3, 1993 with plaintiff in attendance--is undisputed for Rule
56 purposes, warranting judgment in their favor. Moreover,
for the reasons recited by the district court, we agree that
defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity even if a
de minimis constitutional violation were deemed to have ___________
occurred.
Affirmed. ________
-2-