Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Georgacarakos v. Clemons, 93-2144 (1994)

Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Number: 93-2144 Visitors: 14
Filed: Jun. 01, 1994
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: June 1, 1994 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ____________________ No. 93-2144 PETER N. GEORGACARAKOS, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. JAMES CLEMONS, ET AL., Defendants, Appellees. _____________ ____________________ Peter N. Georgacarakos on brief pro se.
USCA1 Opinion




June 1, 1994 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

____________________


No. 93-2144

PETER N. GEORGACARAKOS,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

JAMES CLEMONS, ET AL.,

Defendants, Appellees.


____________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

[Hon. D. Brock Hornby, U.S. District Judge]
___________________

____________________

Before

Cyr, Circuit Judge,
_____________
Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge, and
____________________
Stahl, Circuit Judge.
_____________

____________________

Peter N. Georgacarakos on brief pro se.
______________________
Michael E. Carpenter, Attorney General, and Diane Sleek,
_______________________ ____________
Assistant Attorney General, on brief for appellees (Except Appellee
Orlando).


____________________


____________________






Per Curiam. Plaintiff Peter Georgacarakos filed an
__________


















action against state prison officials and a deputy United

States Marshal. He premised his claims on 42 U.S.C. 1983

and the Fifth Amendment. Upon the recommendations of a

magistrate judge, the district court granted the motions to

dismiss of two of the defendants and the motion for summary

judgment of the remaining defendants.

We have carefully reviewed the record and the

briefs of the parties and affirm the judgment of the district

court for essentially the reasons stated in the magistrate

judge's Recommended Dispositions of the two motions to

dismiss, Docket #27 and #53, and the Recommended Disposition

of the motion for summary judgment, docket #54, which the

district court judge adopted. Because the magistrate judge's

reports were sound and well-grounded in the law, there is no

reason for us to repeat his conclusions here. See In re San
___ _________

Juan DuPont Plaza Hotel Fire Litigation, 989 F.2d 36, 38 (1st
_______________________________________

Cir. 1993).

Affirmed.
________

















-3-







Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer