Simon v. US DOJ
Case Date: 06/25/1996
Court: United States Court of Appeals
Docket No: 95-2012
|
June 25, 1996 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ____________________ No. 95-2012 CHARLES SIMON, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, ET AL., Defendants, Appellees. ____________________ APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. Mark L. Wolf, U.S. District Judge] ___________________ ____________________ Before Selya, Cyr and Lynch, Circuit Judges. ______________ ____________________ Charles Simon on brief pro se. _____________ Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, and Thomas E. Kanwit, ________________ ________________ Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Prisons. Robert D. Keefe, James J. Nacklaus and Hale and Dorr on brief for _______________ _________________ _____________ appellees Wendy Issokson and Erik Lifton. ____________________ ____________________ Per Curiam. The judgment is affirmed substantially for __________ the reasons recited by the district court in its orders dated August 30, 1995 and May 5, 1995. Contrary to plaintiff's suggestion, his appeal from the final judgment brings both of these rulings before this court for review. Having considered the matters de novo, rather than under the abuse- _______ of-discretion standard proposed by plaintiff, we agree that his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims lack even the minimal factual specificity required to scale the Rule 12(b)(6) hurdle. See, e.g., Aulson v. Blanchard, 83 F.3d 1, ___ ____ ______ _________ 3 (1st Cir. 1996) ("bald assertions, unsupportable conclusions, periphrastic circumlocutions, and the like need not be credited"). We likewise agree, for the reasons enumerated by the district court, that plaintiff's execution of the "award acknowledgement and acceptance" form extinguished any further claim for inmate accident compensation under 18 U.S.C. 4126(c), entitling the Bureau of Prisons to summary judgment on that issue. Affirmed. See Loc. R. 27.1. The petition for a ________________________________________________________ "Peremptory Writ of Mandamus" is denied. ________________________________________ -2- |