Filed: Dec. 24, 2003
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: Defendants, Appellees.Torruella and Selya, Circuit Judges.Erico Davias on brief pro se., Thomas P. Colantuono, United States Attorney, and T. David, Plourde, Assistant U.S. Attorney, on brief for appellee Social, Security Administration.district judge.F.2d 987, 994-95 (1st Cir.
Not for publication in West's Federal Reporter
Citation Limited Pursuant to 1st Cir. Loc. R. 32.3
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 03-1376
ERICO DAVIAS,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
[Hon. Paul J. Barbadoro, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Boudin, Chief Judge,
Torruella and Selya, Circuit Judges.
Erico Davias on brief pro se.
Thomas P. Colantuono, United States Attorney, and T. David
Plourde, Assistant U.S. Attorney, on brief for appellee Social
Security Administration.
December 24, 2003
Per Curiam. The judgment is affirmed substantially for the
reasons recited in the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation
dated January 22, 2003, which was subsequently adopted by the
district judge. We add that neither below nor on appeal has
plaintiff set forth "a general scenario which, if proven, would
entitle [him] to relief against the defendant[s] on some cognizable
theory." Hatch v. Dep't for Children, Youth & Families, 274 F.3d
12, 19 (1st Cir. 2001). See, e.g., Brown v. Newberger,
291 F.3d
89, 92 (1st Cir. 2002) (explaining why claims against state agency
would fail); Monahan v. Dorchester Counseling Center, Inc.,
961
F.2d 987, 994-95 (1st Cir. 1992) (concluding that Restatement of
Bill of Rights for Mental Health Patients, 42 U.S.C. ยง 10841,
"creates no enforceable federal rights") (footnote omitted). The
district court thus did not abuse its discretion in denying
plaintiff's request to amend his complaint on the ground of
futility.
Affirmed.
-2-
