
USCA1 Opinion

	




                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 96-1805                                  ROBERT E. BRADLEY,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                        UNITED STATES VETERANS ADMINISTRATION,                                 Defendant, Appellee.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE                     [Hon. D. Brock Hornby, U.S. District Judge]                                            ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                               Selya, Boudin and Lynch,                                   Circuit Judges.                                   ______________                                 ____________________            Robert E. Bradley on brief pro se.            _________________            Jay P. McCloskey,  United States  Attorney, David  R. Collins  and            ________________                            _________________        Margaret D.  McGaughey, Assistant  United States Attorneys,  on Motion        ______________________        for Summary Affirmance for appellee.                                 ____________________                                   January 22, 1997                                 ____________________                 Per  Curiam.    Pro  se  plaintiff  Robert  Bradley,  an                 ___________     ___  __            incarcerated  felon, appeals a  district court  judgment that            dismissed    his    action    challenging     the    Veterans            Administration's decision to  reduce his disability  benefits            pursuant  to  38  U.S.C.      5513(a)(1)(requiring  temporary            reduction of veterans' benefits paid to incarcerated felons).            The  district  court  dismissed Bradley's  complaint  on  the            grounds that  it lacked subject matter  jurisdiction under 38            U.S.C.     511(a), 7252(a).   After thoroughly  reviewing the            record and the  parties' briefs on  appeal, we conclude  that            the district court order is clearly correct.                   Bradley's  complaint  seeks   to  reverse  the  Veterans            Administration's decision to reduce his benefits based on his            status  as an  incarcerated  felon.   The  district court  is            prohibited from asserting jurisdiction over such claims by 38            U.S.C.   511, and it is well established that Bradley may not            circumvent  this  prohibition  by   asserting  constitutional            claims.  See, e.g., Zuspann v. Brown, 60 F.3d 1156, 1159 (5th                     ___  ____  _______    _____            Cir.  1995), cert. denied, 116  S. Ct. 909  (1996); Sugrue v.                         _____ ______                           ______            Derwinski, 26 F.3d 8, 11 (2d Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 115 S.            _________                                _____ ______            Ct. 2245  (1995); Larrabee  by Jones  v. Derwinski,  968 F.2d                              __________________     _________            1497,   1500-01   (2d   Cir.   1992);   Hicks   v.   Veterans                                                    _____        ________            Administration, 961 F.2d 1367,  1370 (8th Cir. 1992); Tietjen            ______________                                        _______            v. U.S. Veterans Administration, 884 F.2d 514, 515  (9th Cir.               ____________________________            1989);  Milliken  v. Gleason,  332  F.2d 122,  123  (1st Cir.                    ________     _______                                         -2-            1964), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 1002 (1965).  Rather, Bradley's                   _____ ______            sole  remedy is  through  the procedures  established by  the            Veterans Judicial Review Act, Pub. Law No. 100-687, 102 Stat.            4105 (1988).  See Hall v. U.S. Dept. of Veterans  Affairs, 85                          ___ ____    _______________________________            F.3d 532, 535 (11th Cir. 1996)(per curiam).                     Bradley's contention  that 38  U.S.C.    511(a) violates            Article  III and  his  right  of  access  to  the  courts  is            frivolous.  See Marozsan v. United States, 90 F.3d 1284, 1288                        ___ ________    _____________            (7th Cir.  1996). Accordingly,  the judgment of  dismissal is            summarily affirmed.  See Local Rule 27.1.                      ________   ___                                         -3-
