[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________





        No. 97-1081



                                 JOHN J. SHAUGHNESSY,



                                Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                          v.



                               CITY OF LACONIA, ET AL.,



                                Defendants, Appellees.



                                 ____________________





                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE



                   [Hon. Steven J. McAuliffe, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________

                           Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________



                                 ____________________



            John J. Shaughnessy on brief pro se.
            ___________________

            John  T.  Alexander   and  Ransmeier  &  Spellman  on  brief   for
            ___________________        ______________________

        appellees.





                                 ____________________



                                  September 22, 1997

                                 ____________________







































                      Per  Curiam.   In  this  appeal,  pro  se in  forma
                      ___________



            pauperis appellant John Shaughnessy objects  to the dismissal



            of his civil  rights action asserting  a due process  claim.1
                                                                        1



            The action was dismissed under 28 U.S.C.   1915(e)(2)(B)(ii),



            which  requires dismissal of  an in forma  pauperis complaint



            "at any time" if  it fails to state  a claim for relief.   We



            affirm.



                      In his suit,  Shaughnessy alleged that the  City of



            Laconia  and  various individual  defendants  denied  him due



            process of law by failing to review or hold a hearing  on his



            claim  that he  had  not  received  the  veterans  employment



            preference described  in N.H. Rev.  Stat. Ann.   283  and the



            City's  affirmative action  plan  when  he  applied  for  the



            position of Director of Personnel and Purchasing in  1994 and



            for   the  position   of   Assessing   Technician  in   1995.



            Shaughnessy  failed to state  a claim  for relief  because he



            failed to make sufficient factual allegations to show that he



            had a property interest in  the preference, i.e., that he was



            entitled to the preference.  See 2 Moore's Federal Practice  
                                         ___   ________________________



            12.34[4][a],  at  12-71  (3d  ed.  1997)  ("Dismissal  [of  a



                                
            ____________________



               1While the  complaint asserted  other claims  as well,  on
               1

            appeal Shaugnessy  has not presented  developed argumentation

            regarding  those claims.   Accordingly,  we  do not  consider

            them.   See Martinez  v. Colon,  54 F.3d  980, 990  (1st Cir.
                    ___ ________     _____

            1995) ("It is settled in this circuit that issues adverted to

            on  appeal in  a perfunctory  manner,  unaccompanied by  some

            developed argumentation, are deemed to have been abandoned.")

            (quotation marks and citation omitted).

              



                                         -2-





























            complaint] is  proper if  the complaint  lacks an  allegation



            regarding an element  necessary to obtain relief.").   First,



            he did not allege that he had furnished the City proof of his



            entitlement to the veterans preference at the time he applied



            for employment, as required by  N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann.   283:7.



            That provision states,  "Veterans, in order to be entitled to



            preference  under this  subdivision, shall  furnish proof  of



            such entitlement to the hiring  authority . . . when applying



            for  employment."   Second, he  did  not allege  that he  had



            requested  the preference on  his employment  application, as



            required by the City's affirmative action plan.



                      Affirmed.
                      _________



























































                                         -3-