
USCA1 Opinion

	




          May 15, 1996                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 95-2158                                  JEROME E. CASSELL,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                           STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ET AL.,                                Defendants, Appellees.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE                    [Hon. Paul J. Barbadoro, U.S. District Judge]                                             ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                 Selya, Cyr and Lynch,                                   Circuit Judges.                                   ______________                                 ____________________            Jerome E. Cassell on brief pro se.            _________________                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                      Per  Curiam.  On a review of the complaint under 28                      ___________            U.S.C.      1915(d),   the  district   court  dismissed   the            "retaliatory  transfer" claims  because they  were frivolous.            We are satisfied that there  was no abuse of discretion since            the complaint's  allegations cannot  support an inference  of            unlawful retaliation or conspiracy.   Reviewing the dismissal            of appellant's other claims de novo, we find no error in  the                                        __ ____            jurisdictional  dismissal  of  the  claims   challenging  the            conditions of appellant's Virginia confinement and, following            an opportunity to amend, the dismissal  with prejudice of the            claims alleging  a deprivation  of, or denial  of access  to,            personal  property  and  legal  materials.    See  Denton  v.                                                          ___  ______            Hernandez,  504 U.S.  25, 34 (1992);  Forte v.  Sullivan, 935            _________                             _____     ________            F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1991).                      Affirmed.                      ________                                         -2-
