
USCA1 Opinion

	




                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 96-2048                                    ERICO DAVIAS,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                               CLYDE GARRIGAN, ET AL.,                                Defendants, Appellees.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE                   [Hon. Joseph A. DiClerico, U.S. District Judge]                                              ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Torruella, Chief Judge,                                           ___________                           Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,                                     ____________________                              and Boudin, Circuit Judge.                                          _____________                                 ____________________            Erico Davias on brief pro se.            ____________            Paul  M. Gagnon,  United States  Attorney, and  T. David  Plourde,            _______________                                 _________________        Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for federal appellees.                                 ____________________                                     June 3, 1997                                 ____________________                 Per  Curiam.   We  agree,  essentially  for the  reasons                 ___________            recited in the magistrate-judge's June 24, 1996 report (which            was later  adopted by  the district judge),  that plaintiff's            various  claims are  subject to dismissal.   The  judgment is            modified  simply to  reflect  that a  portion of  plaintiff's            claims--i.e., those that are barred by Heck v.  Humphrey, 512                                                   ____     ________            U.S.  477 (1993), and those  that set forth pendent state-law            claims--are  dismissed  without  prejudice.    The  remaining                                    _______            claims are dismissed with prejudice.                                  ____                 The judgment, as modified, is affirmed.                 _______________________________________                                         -2-
