
USCA1 Opinion

	




          July 12, 1994                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 93-2024                                   GREGORY T. MURRAY,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                     PENOBSCOT COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ET AL.,                                Defendants, Appellees.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE                     [Hon. Morton A. Brody, U.S. District Judge]                                            ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                             Torruella, Boudin and Stahl,                                   Circuit Judges.                                   ______________                                 ____________________            Gregory T. Murray on brief pro se.            _________________            Jeffrey M. Silverstein, Assistant District Attorney, on brief  for            ______________________        appellee R. Christopher Almy, District Attorney County of Penobscot.            Paul W.  Chaiken, Michael  A. Hodgins,  and Rudman  & Winchell  on            ________________  ___________________       __________________        brief for appellee Bangor Police Department.                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                      Per Curiam.   Murray appeals from  the dismissal of                      __________            his     1983 complaint  filed  against  the Penobscot  County            District  Attorney  and the  Bangor  Police  Department.   We            affirm substantially for the reasons stated in the magistrate            judge's August  23, 1933  recommended decision, adding  these            comments.                      1.  We  agree that the district attorney was immune            from  damages liability with  respect to his  decision not to            prosecute  appellant.   Harrington v.  Almy, 977 F.2d  37, 40                                    ___________________            (1st Cir. 1992).                      2.   We turn  to appellant's false  arrest, illegal            detainment, and illegal search and seizure claims against the            police department.  Citing to Monell v. Department of  Social                                          _______________________________            Services, 436  U.S. 658, 690 (1978),  the magistrate's report            ________            correctly informed  Murray that these claims  were subject to            dismissal  because  liability  could  not  be imposed  absent            allegations  that  the  harm  was inflicted  pursuant  to  an            official policy  or custom.  Despite that notice, Murray made            no  attempt to  correct  the complaint's  deficiency.   There            simply  are no allegations,  as there must be  to sustain a              1983 suit,  linking a  department policy  or custom  with any            constitutional violation.   Monell,  436 U.S. at  691-94; see                                        ______                        ___            also Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 385 (1989); Bordanaro v.            ____ _________ ______                            ____________            McLeod, 871  F.2d 1151, 1157  (1st Cir.),  cert. denied,  493            ______                                     _____ ______            U.S.  820 (1989).    Because the magistrate's report provided            appellant   with   sufficient  notice   of   his  complaint's            deficiencies, and because appellant failed timely  to correct            those  inadequacies, the  complaint  was properly  dismissed.            Purvis  v. Ponte,  929 F.2d  822, 826-27  (1st Cir.  1991) (             ________________            1915(d) dismissal  did not  violate Neitzke v.  Williams, 490                                                ____________________            U.S.  319 (1989),  where magistrate's  report gave  plaintiff            notice  of  his  complaint's   factual  deficiencies  and  an            opportunity to cure).                      Affirmed.                      ________                                         -3-
