[NOT FOR PUBLICATION–NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]

                 United States Court of Appeals

                     For the First Circuit











No. 99-1033



                        SHANNON E. HICKS,



                      Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                v.



   MASSACHUSETTS DEPT. OF CORRECTION, M. MALONEY, COMMISSIONER,

                   BRIDGEWATER STATE HOSPITAL,



                      Defendants, Appellees,

                       ____________________



     MARICOPA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, NATE JACKSON, MARICOPA

               COUNTY CORRECTIONAL HEALTH SERVICES,



                       Interested Parties.







           APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS



            [Hon. Patti B. Saris, U.S. District Judge]







                              Before



                    Selya, Boudin and Lynch,

                        Circuit Judges.

                                

                                

                                

     Shannon E. Hicks on brief pro se.

     Nancy A. White, Special Assistant Attorney General, and

Beatriz E. Van Meek, Counsel, Department of Corrections, on Motion

for Summary Disposition.









September 14, 1999







  

            Per Curiam. Shannon Hicks appeals pro se from the

  dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action seeking damages

  against the Massachusetts Department of Corrections,

  Commissioner Michael Maloney, and Bridgewater State Hospital

  based on alleged violations of the Interstate Agreement on

  Detainers ("IAD").  Upon careful review of the record and

  filings in this court, we affirm essentially for the reasons

  stated by the district court in its December 4, 1998 memorandum

  and order.  

            We add that Hicks has made no argument that the

  district court erred in denying his motion to supplement the

  complaint, and any claims that he may have against the Maricopa

  County Sheriff's Office, Nate Jackson, or the Maricopa County

  Correctional Health Services are not before us.  In addition,

  his § 1983 law suit below was limited to alleged violations of

  the IAD, and any claims that he may have for violation of the

  Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, the Fifth and Fourteenth

  Amendments of the United States Constitution, or the

  Massachusetts Rules of Criminal Procedure are not before us.  

            Affirmed.