Castro v. U.S. Dept. Housing ( 1996 )

USCA1 Opinion

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________





        No. 96-1537



                                   KEVIN M. CASTRO,



                                Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                          v.



             UNITED STATES DEPT. OF HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT, ET AL.,



                                Defendants, Appellees.



                                 ____________________





                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND



                 [Hon. Francis J. Boyle, Senior U.S. District Judge]
__________________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
___________

                          Boudin and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
______________



                                 ____________________



            Kevin M. Castro on brief pro se.
_______________

            Jean A.  Boulanger and Capaldi &  Boulanger on  brief for appellee
__________________     ____________________

        Coventry Housing Authority.

            Marc DeSisto, Kathleen M. Powers and  DeSisto Law Offices on brief
____________  __________________      ___________________

        for appellee Barry Yeaw, in  his capacity as Treasurer of the  Town of

        Coventry.





                                 ____________________



                                   November 7, 1996

                                 ____________________































                      Per Curiam.   Having reviewed the parties'  briefs,
__________



            we summarily  affirm the  judgment below on  the ground  that



            appellant has  made no developed  argument for reversal.   We



            add  that  the   individual  police  officers   who  arrested



            appellant were never made parties to the instant lawsuit, and



            that the Town  of Coventry may  not be  held liable under  42



            U.S.C.   1983 on a theory of respondeat superior.  See Monell
__________ ________   ___ ______



            v. New  York City  Dep't of  Soc. Servs.,  436 U.S. 658,  691
_____________________________________



            (1978).   In addition, based on his filings below, it appears



            as  if  the  only  damages  appellant  sought  were  punitive



            damages.   Such damages are  not available under  42 U.S.C.



            1983  against  either  the   Town  or  the  Coventry  Housing



            Authority.  See City  of Newport v. Fact Concerts,  Inc., 453
___ ________________    ____________________



            U.S. 247, 271 (1981); Adler  v Lincoln Housing Authority, 623
_____    _________________________



            A.2d 20, 21 n.1 (R.I. 1993).



                      Affirmed.  See Loc. R. 27.1.
_________  ___











































                                         -2-