Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Brown v. Commonwealth, 97-1129 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Number: 97-1129 Visitors: 17
Filed: Aug. 05, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: v., COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, ET AL.Defendants, Appellees.Circuit Judges. Plaintiff-appellant Melvin A. Brown, appeals pro se from the dismissal of a 42 U.S.C. S 1983, complaint alleging denial of equal protection and deprivation, of property without due process of law.
USCA1 Opinion










[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________


No. 97-1129

MELVIN A. BROWN,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, ET AL.,

Defendants, Appellees.
____________________


APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[Hon. Michael A. Ponsor, U.S. District Judge]

____________________

Before

Boudin, Stahl and Lynch,
Circuit Judges.

____________________

Melvin A. Brown on brief pro se.
Scott Harshbarger, Attorney General, and H. Gregory Williams,
Assistant Attorney General, on brief for appellees Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, Supreme Judicial Court, Appeals Court, Appellate Tax
Board, Chicopee District Court Small Claims Division, and William Weld,
a natural person, as Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
William J. O'Grady, Associate City Solicitor, Chicopee Law
Department, on brief for appellee City of Chicopee (City of Chicopee
Board of Sewer Commissioners, and Board of Water Commissioners).


____________________

August 5, 1997
____________________





Per Curiam. Plaintiff-appellant Melvin A. Brown

appeals pro se from the dismissal of a 42 U.S.C. S 1983

complaint alleging denial of equal protection and deprivation

of property without due process of law. Having carefully

reviewed the record and the parties' briefs, we are persuaded

the decision below should be affirmed essentially for the

reasons stated in the magistrate's report and recommendation

dated December 10, 1996. We add simply that appellant has

waived any substantive due process argument based on his

failure to raise the issue in the district court.

Affirmed.































-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