USCA1 Opinion
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 96-1150
DERRICK ANDERSON,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
TOWER RECORDS, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Edward F. Harrington, U.S. District Judge] ___________________
____________________
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________
Boudin and Lynch, Circuit Judges. ______________
____________________
Derrick Anderson on brief pro se. ________________
____________________
____________________
Per Curiam. Derrick Anderson appeals pro se the ___________ ___ __
dismissal, on remand, of his claims against Tower Records,
two Tower Records security guards, their supervisor, and "any
other respondeat superiors" brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
1983. The district court earlier dismissed the claims as
frivolous within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. 1915(d) because
Anderson failed to state facts showing that defendants acted
under "color of law." We vacated the dismissal, ruling that
Anderson should be afforded the opportunity to replead.
Anderson v. Tower Records, No. 95-1585, slip op. at 3-4 (1st ________ _____________
Cir. Nov. 8, 1995). In so ruling, we stressed that Anderson,
in his original complaint, had not met the "color-of-law"
requirement through adequate allegations of fact (let alone
proof). Id. On remand, Anderson submitted a "Reiteration of ___
Civil Rights Complaint" which was not significantly different
from his original complaint. Under the circumstances, and in
light of the fact that Anderson was afforded the opportunity
to amend, we think the district court properly dismissed the
claims on the merits.
Affirmed. _________
-2-