Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Moreno, 95-1569 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Number: 95-1569 Visitors: 6
Filed: Dec. 13, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: , ________________, 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.
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[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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-






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