
USCA1 Opinion

	




                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 96-1150                                  DERRICK ANDERSON,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                                TOWER RECORDS, ET AL.,                                Defendants, Appellees.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                   [Hon. Edward F. Harrington, U.S. District Judge]                                               ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Torruella, Chief Judge,                                           ___________                          Boudin and Lynch, Circuit Judges.                                            ______________                                 ____________________            Derrick Anderson on brief pro se.            ________________                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                      Per  Curiam.  Derrick  Anderson appeals pro  se the                      ___________                             ___  __            dismissal, on remand,  of his claims against   Tower Records,            two Tower Records security guards, their supervisor, and "any            other respondeat superiors"  brought pursuant to 42  U.S.C.              1983.   The district court  earlier dismissed  the claims  as            frivolous  within the meaning of  28 U.S.C.   1915(d) because            Anderson  failed to state facts showing that defendants acted            under "color of law."   We vacated the dismissal, ruling that            Anderson  should  be  afforded  the opportunity  to  replead.            Anderson v. Tower Records, No.  95-1585, slip op. at 3-4 (1st            ________    _____________            Cir. Nov. 8, 1995).  In so ruling, we stressed that Anderson,            in his  original complaint,  had not  met the  "color-of-law"            requirement through adequate allegations  of fact (let  alone            proof).  Id.  On remand, Anderson submitted a "Reiteration of                     ___            Civil Rights Complaint" which was not significantly different            from his original complaint.  Under the circumstances, and in            light of  the fact that Anderson was afforded the opportunity            to amend, we think the district  court properly dismissed the            claims on the merits.                      Affirmed.                      _________                                         -2-
