Brooker v. Commissioner, NH ( 1996 )

USCA1 Opinion

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________





        No. 96-1444



                                SCOTT PHILIP BROOKER,



                                Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                          v.



                 COMMISSIONER, NH DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL.,



                                Defendants, Appellees.



                                 ____________________





                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE



                   [Hon. Joseph A. DiClerico, U.S. District Judge]
___________________

                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Selya, Cyr and Boudin,

                                   Circuit Judges.
______________



                                 ____________________



            Scott Brooker on brief pro se.
_____________

            Jeffrey R. Howard, Attorney General, and Stephen J. Judge, Senior
_________________                        ________________

        Assistant Attorney General, on brief for appellees.





                                 ____________________



                                  November 26, 1996

                                 ____________________







































                      Per Curiam.   Appellant Scott  Philip Brooker  sued
__________



            defendants  under 42 U.S.C.    1983, alleging  that they were



            deliberately  indifferent to  his  serious medical  needs  in



            violation of the  Eighth Amendment. He  now appeals from  the



            district  court's grant  of summary  judgment  in defendants'



            favor.    After  careful  review  of  the  record, we  affirm



            substantially for the  reasons given by the district court in



            its decision dated April 1, 1996.



                      Affirmed.
_________







































































                                         -2-