
USCA1 Opinion

	




        June 1, 1994            [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 93-2144                                PETER N. GEORGACARAKOS,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                                JAMES CLEMONS, ET AL.,                                Defendants, Appellees.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE                     [Hon. D. Brock Hornby, U.S. District Judge]                                            ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                  Cyr, Circuit Judge,                                       _____________                          Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge, and                                  ____________________                                Stahl, Circuit Judge.                                       _____________                                 ____________________            Peter N. Georgacarakos on brief pro se.            ______________________            Michael   E.  Carpenter,   Attorney  General,  and   Diane  Sleek,            _______________________                              ____________        Assistant Attorney General,  on brief for  appellees (Except  Appellee        Orlando).                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                      Per Curiam.  Plaintiff Peter Georgacarakos filed an                      __________            action  against state  prison officials  and a  deputy United            States Marshal.  He premised  his claims on 42 U.S.C.    1983            and  the Fifth  Amendment.   Upon  the  recommendations of  a            magistrate judge,  the district court granted  the motions to            dismiss of two of  the defendants and the motion  for summary            judgment of the remaining defendants.                      We  have  carefully  reviewed the  record  and  the            briefs of the parties and affirm the judgment of the district            court for  essentially the  reasons stated in  the magistrate            judge's  Recommended  Dispositions  of  the  two  motions  to            dismiss, Docket #27 and  #53, and the Recommended Disposition            of the  motion for  summary judgment,  docket #54,  which the            district court judge adopted.  Because the magistrate judge's            reports  were sound and well-grounded in the law, there is no            reason for us to repeat his  conclusions here.  See In re San                                                            ___ _________            Juan DuPont Plaza Hotel Fire Litigation, 989 F.2d 36, 38 (1st            _______________________________________            Cir. 1993).                      Affirmed.                      ________                                         -3-
