Anvari v. United States Depart ( 1999 )

USCA1 Opinion

       [NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]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.