Davis v. Corrections

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April 5, 1995 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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-