USCA1 Opinion
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 96-1569
JEREMIAH J. CONNORS,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
CITY OF BOSTON, TRANSPORTATION
DEPARTMENT, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Robert B. Collings, U.S. Magistrate Judge] _____________________
____________________
Before
Cyr, Circuit Judge, _____________
Aldrich and Campbell, Senior Circuit Judges. _____________________
____________________
John A. Hanrahan for appellant. ________________
Amy Spector, Assistant Attorney General, with whom Scott _____________ _____
Harshbarger, Attorney General of Massachusetts, Office of the Attorney ___________
General, was on brief for appellee, Personnel Administrator of the
Department of Personnel Administration.
Elizabeth R. O'Donnell, Assistant Corporation Counsel, with whom ______________________
Merita A. Hopkins, Corporation Counsel, and Kevin S. McDermott, __________________ ____________________
Assistant Corporation Counsel, City of Boston Law Department, were on
brief for appellee, City of Boston, Transportation Department.
____________________
December 13, 1996
____________________
Per Curiam. After consideration of the briefs, ___________
arguments and record, we affirm the judgment of the district
court for substantially the same reasons set out in the
memorandum and order of the magistrate judge.1
Like the magistrate judge, we can find no property
interest in the state position plaintiff held that is
sufficient to support a federal due process claim. We also
agree that the Eleventh Amendment prevents plaintiff, in the
circumstances, from suing a state administrative official in
a federal forum over the question of an alleged violation of
the state civil service law. Whether and to what extent a
state forum is or would have been available to plaintiff to
litigate any of his claims concerning state civil service
practices is a matter outside our jurisdiction to consider.
____________________
1. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c) the instant case was
referred and reassigned in the district court, with the
parties' consent, to the magistrate judge for all purposes,
including trial and the entry of judgment.
-2-