
USCA1 Opinion

	




                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 96-1447                                   MIGUEL A. BREA,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                    LARRY E. DUBOIS, COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONS,                                 Defendant, Appellee.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                     [Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge]                                             ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Selya, Cyr and Boudin,                                   Circuit Judges.                                   ______________                                 ____________________            Miguel Angel Brea on brief pro se.            _________________            Nancy A.  White, Special Assistant  Attorney General, and  Herbert            _______________                                            _______        C. Hanson,  Senior Litigation  Attorney, Department of  Correction, on        _________        Motion for Summary Disposition, for appellee.                                 ____________________                                   August 27, 1996                                 ____________________                      Per Curiam.   We affirm for  the reasons stated  by                      __________            the  district  court.    Despite  an  opportunity  to  amend,            plaintiff failed to  allege any action or  inaction rising to            the level of deliberate indifference to plaintiff's needs and            therefore failed  to state  an Eighth  Amendment claim.   See                                                                      ___            Wilson   v.  Seiter,   501   U.S.   294  (1991)   (deliberate            ___________________            indifference  standard).     Nor  did  he   state  any  other            constitutional claim.   Plaintiff may  pursue whatever  state            causes of action he believes he may have in state court.                      Plaintiff's  motion to strike appellee's motion for            summary disposition is denied.                      Affirmed.  See Loc. R. 27.1.                      ________   ___                                         -2-
