USCA1 Opinion
June 25, 1996
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 95-2012
CHARLES SIMON,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Mark L. Wolf, U.S. District Judge] ___________________
____________________
Before
Selya, Cyr and Lynch,
Circuit Judges. ______________
____________________
Charles Simon on brief pro se. _____________
Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, and Thomas E. Kanwit, ________________ ________________
Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee United States
Department of Justice, Bureau of Prisons.
Robert D. Keefe, James J. Nacklaus and Hale and Dorr on brief for _______________ _________________ _____________
appellees Wendy Issokson and Erik Lifton.
____________________
____________________
Per Curiam. The judgment is affirmed substantially for __________
the reasons recited by the district court in its orders dated
August 30, 1995 and May 5, 1995. Contrary to plaintiff's
suggestion, his appeal from the final judgment brings both of
these rulings before this court for review. Having
considered the matters de novo, rather than under the abuse- _______
of-discretion standard proposed by plaintiff, we agree that
his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims lack even the
minimal factual specificity required to scale the Rule
12(b)(6) hurdle. See, e.g., Aulson v. Blanchard, 83 F.3d 1, ___ ____ ______ _________
3 (1st Cir. 1996) ("bald assertions, unsupportable
conclusions, periphrastic circumlocutions, and the like need
not be credited"). We likewise agree, for the reasons
enumerated by the district court, that plaintiff's execution
of the "award acknowledgement and acceptance" form
extinguished any further claim for inmate accident
compensation under 18 U.S.C. 4126(c), entitling the Bureau
of Prisons to summary judgment on that issue.
Affirmed. See Loc. R. 27.1. The petition for a ________________________________________________________
"Peremptory Writ of Mandamus" is denied. ________________________________________
-2-