
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          June 25, 1996                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                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-
