United States v. Moreno ( 1996 )

USCA1 Opinion

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT





                                 ____________________



        No. 96-1569



                                 JEREMIAH J. CONNORS,



                                Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                          v.



                            CITY OF BOSTON, TRANSPORTATION

                                 DEPARTMENT, ET AL.,



                                Defendants, Appellees.



                                 ____________________



                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS



                   [Hon. Robert B. Collings, U.S. Magistrate Judge]
_____________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                  Cyr, Circuit Judge,
_____________



                     Aldrich and Campbell, Senior Circuit Judges.
_____________________



                                 ____________________



            John A. Hanrahan for appellant.
________________

            Amy   Spector,  Assistant   Attorney  General,  with   whom  Scott
_____________                                                _____

        Harshbarger, Attorney General of Massachusetts, Office of the Attorney
___________

        General, was  on brief  for appellee,  Personnel Administrator of  the

        Department of Personnel Administration.

            Elizabeth R. O'Donnell,  Assistant Corporation Counsel,  with whom
______________________

        Merita A.  Hopkins,  Corporation  Counsel,  and  Kevin  S.  McDermott,
__________________                               ____________________

        Assistant Corporation  Counsel, City of Boston Law Department, were on

        brief for appellee, City of Boston, Transportation Department.



                                 ____________________



                                  December 13, 1996

                                 ____________________







































                      Per  Curiam.   After  consideration of  the briefs,
___________



            arguments  and record, we affirm the judgment of the district



            court  for substantially  the  same reasons  set  out in  the



            memorandum and order of the magistrate judge.1



                      Like the magistrate judge,  we can find no property



            interest  in  the  state  position  plaintiff  held  that  is



            sufficient to support a  federal due process claim.   We also



            agree that the Eleventh  Amendment prevents plaintiff, in the



            circumstances, from suing a state administrative  official in



            a  federal forum over the question of an alleged violation of



            the state  civil service law.   Whether and to what  extent a



            state forum is or  would have been available to  plaintiff to



            litigate  any of  his claims  concerning state  civil service



            practices is a matter outside our jurisdiction to consider.






































____________________



            1.  Pursuant  to  28 U.S.C.     636(c) the  instant  case was

            referred  and  reassigned in  the  district  court, with  the

            parties' consent,  to the magistrate judge  for all purposes,

            including trial and the entry of judgment.



                                         -2-