Simon v. US DOJ ( 1996 )

USCA1 Opinion

          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                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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-