Anvari v. United States Depart ( 1999 )


Menu:
  •      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
    United States Court of Appeals
    For the First Circuit
    No. 98-2203
    JAMSHED ANVARI,
    Plaintiff, Appellant,
    v.
    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,
    WILLIAM A. CONTE, EDITH NOURSE ROGERS VETERANS
    ADMINISTRATION HOSPITAL, FRANCES JULIE FUSCO,
    JOEL ARNOLD, MICHAEL CAREY, JOAN MILNER
    AND UNITED STATES,
    Defendants, Appellees.
    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
    [Hon. Nancy Gertner, U.S. District Judge]
    Before
    Selya, Circuit Judge,
    Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge,
    and Stahl, Circuit Judge.
    Jamshed Anvari on brief pro se.
    Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, and Michael J.
    Pineault, Assistant U.S. Attorney, on brief for appellees.
    July 15, 1999
    Per Curiam.  Pro se plaintiff Jamshed Anvari appeals
    a district court order that summarily dismissed his complaint
    based on the defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R.
    Civ. P. 12(b)(1), (5), and (6).  Having thoroughly reviewed the
    record and the parties' briefs on appeal, we conclude that the
    order of dismissal is correct.  Plaintiff's claims are wholly
    preempted by the remedies available to him under civil service
    law.  See, e.g., Berry v. Hollander, 
    925 F.2d 311
    , 314-16 (9th
    Cir. 1991); Heaney v. United States Veterans Administration,
    
    756 F.2d 1215
    , 1220 (5th Cir. 1985); Premachandra v. United
    States, 
    739 F.2d 392
    , 394 (8th Cir. 1984); Roth v. United
    States, 
    952 F.2d 611
    , 614 (1st Cir. 1991); Berrios v. Dep't of
    the Army, 
    884 F.2d 28
    , 30 (1st Cir. 1989); Maniktahla v. John
    J. Pershing VA Medical Center, 
    967 F. Supp. 379
    , 381-82 (E.D.
    Mo. 1997); Hicks v. Brown 
    929 F. Supp. 1184
    , 1187-89 (E.D. Ark.
    1996); Gregor v. Derwinski, 
    911 F. Supp. 643
    (W.D.N.Y. 1996).
    Consequently, we need not address the parties' remaining
    arguments.
    Affirmed.  See Local Rule 27.1.