[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 96-2356
CRAIG J. MERCER,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
SHERIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
Defendant, Appellee.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE
[Hon. Morton A. Brody, U.S. District Judge] ___________________
____________________
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________
Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges. ______________
____________________
Craig J. Mercer on brief pro se. _______________
William R. Fisher, Ivy L. Frignoca and Monaghan, Leahy, Hochadel _________________ _______________ _________________________
& Libby on brief for appellee. _______
____________________
October 14, 1997
____________________
Per Curiam. Plaintiff-appellant Craig J. Mercer, __________
an Ohio prisoner, appeals pro se from the dismissal of his ___ __
complaint under 42 U.S.C. 1983 alleging that the Sheriff of
Cumberland County (Maine) unlawfully detained Mercer and then
unlawfully transferred him to Ohio authorities, without an
extradition hearing, to face final parole revocation
proceedings. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A. We ___
affirm.
Contrary to Mercer's suggestion, we do not think
that he stated a claim for unlawful detention. Pursuant to
Maine's Uniform Act for Out-of-State Parolee Supervision, the
sheriff had the authority to detain Mercer pending the
preliminary parole revocation hearing in Maine, and, since it
appeared that a retaking was likely, for a reasonable time
thereafter. Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 34-A, 9861. We are
not persuaded that the length of detention in the instant
case was unreasonable. The Uniform Act for Out-of-
State Parolee Supervision also permits the retaking of a
parolee subject to the Act without "formalities" other than
"establishing the authority of the officer and the identity
of the person to be retaken." Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 34-A,
9803. Mercer makes no argument that this Act incorporates
the procedural protections afforded by Maine's Criminal
Extradition Act, and the language of 9803 would suggest the
contrary. Under the circumstances, and passing without
-2-
deciding the question whether a failure to comply with
extradition procedures creates a cause of action under
1983, we find no error in the dismissal.
Affirmed. ________
-3-