
USCA1 Opinion

	




        April 5, 1995           [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 94-2032                                      ERIC DAVIS,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                       NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,                                 Defendant, Appellee.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE                [Hon. Martin F. Loughlin, Senior U.S. District Judge]                                          __________________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Torruella, Chief Judge,                                           ___________                            Cyr and Stahl, Circuit Judges.                                           ______________                                 ____________________            Eric Davis on brief pro se.            __________            Jeffrey  R.  Howard,  Attorney   General,  and  Lucy   C.  Hodder,            ___________________                             _________________        Assistant Attorney General, on brief for appellee.                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                      Per Curiam.   Eric Davis, a  New Hampshire  inmate,                      __________            brought  this action under 42 U.S.C.   1983 alleging that his            due process  rights had  been violated in  connection with  a            prison reclassification  hearing.   From an award  of summary            judgment for  defendants (who  are  two classification  board            members sued  in their personal capacities),  he now appeals.            Plaintiff's contention that material  facts remain in dispute            proves mistaken.  Although we read the record and indulge all            inferences in a light most favorable to the non-moving party,            see, e.g., Vasapolli  v. Rostoff,  39 F.3d 27,  32 (1st  Cir.            ___  ____  _________     _______            1994),  "the adverse  party  cannot defeat  a  well-supported            motion"--as  plaintiff   has   attempted  to   do   here--"by            'rest[ing]  upon the  mere  allegations or  denials of  [his]            pleading.'"   Data General  Corp. v. Grumman  Systems Support                          ___________________    ________________________            Corp.,  36 F.3d 1147, 1159  (1st Cir. 1994)  (quoting Fed. R.            _____            Civ. P.  56(e)).  As  a result, defendants'  evidence--to the            effect that the reclassification hearing was held on November            3, 1993 with plaintiff  in attendance--is undisputed for Rule            56 purposes,  warranting judgment in their  favor.  Moreover,            for  the reasons recited by the district court, we agree that            defendants  would be entitled to qualified immunity even if a            de  minimis  constitutional  violation were  deemed  to  have            ___________            occurred.                      Affirmed.                      ________                                         -2-
