Figueroa v. Vose

USCA1 Opinion









March 27, 1996
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

____________________


No. 95-2094


BERNARDO FIGUEROA,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

GEORGE A. VOSE, JR., ET AL.,

Defendants, Appellees.


____________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

[Hon. Ronald R. Lagueux, U.S. District Judge] ___________________

____________________

Before

Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________
Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges. ______________

____________________

Bernardo Figueroa on brief pro se. _________________
Michael B. Grant, Senior Legal Counsel, Rhode Island Department _________________
of Corrections, on Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary
Disposition, for appellees.


____________________


____________________



Per Curiam. Bernardo Figueroa, who is incarcerated __________













in the Maximum Security prison at the Adult Correctional

Institution in Rhode Island, appeals from the district

court's dismissal of his suit against state prison officials

under 42 U.S.C. 1983. We affirm, substantially for the

reasons given in the magistrate judge's report dated July 11,

1995, which the district court adopted as its decision. We

add only the following comments.

1. Figueroa suggests that Sandin v. Conner, 115 S. ______ ______

Ct. 2293 (1995), would not bar his due process claims because

the disciplinary decision against him could affect future

classification or parole decisions. The chairman of the

state parole board testified below that inmate misconduct is

only one of the factors considered in granting or denying

parole and that an inmate may explain adverse disciplinary

decisions to the parole board. Thus, the disciplinary

decision against Figueroa will not "inevitably" affect the

length of his sentence and its existence does not give rise

to a protected liberty interest. See id. at 2302 (dictum). ___ ___

2. Although the complaint asserted that defendants

had harassed Figueroa because of his race or for retaliatory

reasons, Figueroa failed to raise that claim at the hearing

before the magistrate. Nor did he raise it with sufficient

clarity in his objections to the magistrate's report and

recommendation. We therefore deem that claim abandoned. See ___





-2-













Borden v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 836 F.2d 4, ______ ______________________________________

6 (1st Cir. 1987) (per curiam).

3. The district court did not err in failing to

address Figueroa's claim that defendants had violated the

Morris v. Travisono consent decree. We have held that ______ _________

inmates may not bring individual section 1983 actions for

injunctive or declaratory relief which are based on consent

decree violations. See Martel v. Fridovich, 14 F.3d 1, 3 n.4 ___ ______ _________

(1st Cir. 1993).

4. The magistrate judge was authorized to conduct

all necessary hearings and to issue a report and

recommendation for review by the district court, which he

did. Because he was not authorized to and did not enter

judgment in this case, the parties' consent was not required.

See 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) & (c)(1).1 1 ___

____________________

1We note one problem with Magistrate Judge Boudewyns' 1
report and recommendation to the district court which does
not affect the disposition of this appeal. At the end of his
report, the magistrate judge stated that the "[f]ailure to
file specific objections in a timely manner constitutes a
waiver of the right to review by the district court." In a
footnote, he cites Park Motor Mart, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., ______________________ _______________
616 F.2d 603 (1st Cir. 1980), and United States v. Valencia- _____________ _________
Copete, 792 F.2d 4 (1st Cir. 1986) (per curiam). The quoted ______
language accurately states our holding in Park Motor. But it __________
does not encompass our holding in Valencia-Copete, where we _______________
directed all magistrates to include in their reports a notice
that failure to timely object to a report would waive "the
right to appeal the district court's decision." 792 F.2d at ______ ___ ________ _______ ________
6 (emphasis added). We reiterate that all magistrate judges
in this Circuit are required to include in their reports the
statement that failure to file specific objections to reports
in a timely manner waives both the right to review by the
district court and the right to appeal the district court's

-3-













Affirmed. ________















































____________________

decision.

-4-