May 11, 1994          [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ___________________


          No. 94-1021

            


                                       HO WONG,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                           THOMAS MATERAZZO, ETC., ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.


                                  __________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                       [Hon. Rya W. Zobel, U.S. District Judge]
                                           ___________________

                                 ___________________

                                        Before

                                 Breyer, Chief Judge,
                                         ___________
                          Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________

                                 ___________________

               Ho Wong on brief pro se.
               _______
               Albert W.  Wallis, City  of Boston Corporation  Counsel, and
               _________________
          William J.  Pidgeon, Jr., Assistant Corporation  Counsel, City of
          ________________________
          Boston, Law Department on brief for appellee.



                                  __________________

                                  __________________



















                      Per Curiam.  Plaintiff  appellant states that he is
                      __________

            a  homeless veteran who resides  in Boston.   He brought this

            action  under 42  U.S.C.    1983 claiming  that the  Veterans

            Services   Department  for  the  City  of  Boston  wrongfully

            suspended the benefits  to which he was  entitled under Mass.

            Gen.  L. ch.  115, when  he failed  to provide  a residential

            address within the City.  Plaintiff's request for restoration

            of  benefits was denied  and he appealed  to the Commonwealth

            Office of  Veterans' Services.   Shortly after he  filed that

            appeal, he  filed this  complaint in district  court alleging

            that  the  suspension  of  benefits violated  state  law  and

            regulations1   and    the   Due   Process   Clause   of   the

            Constitution.2 

                      The  district court granted  the defendants' motion

            to dismiss for  failure to  exhaust administrative  remedies.

            Plaintiff  argues  that the  dismissal  was  error under  the


                                
            ____________________

            1.  Massachusetts veterans' benefits are made payable by  the
            municipality where  the veteran  "resides," meaning  that the
            veteran  is  "present   within  a   city  or  town   .  .   .
            notwithstanding the lack of a present  abode, with no present
            intention of definite or early removal . . . . "   Mass. Gen.
            L. ch. 115,    1, 5; 108 CMR 2:02(7).   

            2.  Plaintiff  also   charged  a  violation   of  the  Eighth
            Amendment and  a deprivation  of the constitutional  right to
            equal  protection of  the  laws.   We  treat both  claims  as
            surplusage.   There are no facts alleged to support an Eighth
            Amendment   claim,  and   the  equal   protection   claim  is
            contradicted  by plaintiff's allegations  that state  law and
            policy  require equal treatment.  Any  violation of state law
            would  be correctable in state court. See discussion infra at
                                                  ___            _____
            3. 

                                         -2-















            general  principal  that exhaustion  of  state administrative

            remedies is not a prerequisite to maintenance of a suit under

              1983.   Patsy  v. Board  of Regents,  457 U.S.  496 (1982);
                      _____     _________________

            Miller v.  Town of Hull, 878 F.2d  523, 530 (1st Cir.), cert.
            ______     ____________                                 _____

            denied, 493 U.S. 976 (1989).   To maintain his claim under   
            ______

            1983,  however,  the  plaintiff   must  allege  a  cognizable

            violation  of the  Due Process  Clause.   "The constitutional

            violation  actionable under    1983 is not  complete when the

            deprivation occurs; it is  not complete unless and until  the

            State fails to provide [suitable post deprivation remedies]."

            Zinermon v. Burch, 494  U.S. 113, 126 (1990).   Moreover, the
            ________    _____

            crux  of  plaintiff's  complaint   is  that  the   defendants

            disregarded state law and regulations when they suspended his

            benefits.    Ordinarily, an  "alleged misuse or  disregard of

            state  law   by  state   officials  does  not   constitute  a

            deprivation of property without constitutional due process. .

            .  .   Such  deficiencies, if  they  exist, are  readily  and

            adequately correctable  under  state  law  in  state  court."

            Malachowski v. Keene, 787 F.2d 704  (1st Cir.), cert. denied,
            ___________    _____                            ____________

            479 U.S. 828 (1986) (citing Pennhurst State School & Hospital
                                        _________________________________

            v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 104 (1984)). 
               _________

                      We  do  not   here  consider   the  assertions   in

            plaintiff's motion  to amend  the complaint, filed  after the

            district  court  ordered  dismissal  of  the  action "without

            prejudice."  The  motion was denied  because this appeal  was



                                         -3-















            pending.    New matters  must  be properly  presented  to the

            district  court for decision;  they may not  be addressed for

            the first time on appeal.

                      Affirmed.
                      ________













































                                         -4-