McHenry v. United States ( 1998 )

USCA1 Opinion

                         [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                         FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                         ____________________





No. 97-2050





                            P. F. MCHENRY,



                         Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                  v.



                       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,



                         Defendant, Appellee.



                         ____________________





             APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                   FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS



         [Hon. Frank H. Freedman, Senior U.S. District Judge]



                         ____________________



                                Before



                         Selya, Circuit Judge,

                      Cyr, Senior Circuit Judge,

                      and Boudin, Circuit Judge.



                         ____________________



    P. F. McHenry on brief pro se.

    Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, and Karen L. Goodwin,

Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.





                         ____________________



                            MARCH 12, 1998

                         ____________________







           Per Curiam.  Appellant P.F. McHenry appeals from the

    district court's dismissal of her complaint under Fed. R. Civ.

    P. 12(b)(1).  We affirm.  For the reasons given by the district

    court in its order dated July 18, 1997, appellant's statutory

    property claim was properly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

    Nor did appellant adequately assert a claim for intentional

    infliction of emotional distress since she failed to allege

    that appellee's conduct caused severe emotional distress, a

    necessary element of that cause of action under Massachusetts

    law.  See Tetrault v. Mahoney, Hawkes & Goldings, 425 Mass.

    456, 466, 681 N.E.2d 1189, 1197 (1997).  Consequently,

    dismissal of her complaint was proper.  See Doyle v. Hasbro,

    Inc., 103 F.3d 186, 195 (1st Cir. 1996) (affirming dismissal of

    claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress under

    Massachusetts law in part because plaintiff never even

    attempted to plead severe distress); see Fed. R. Civ. P.

    12(b)(6).

             Affirmed.  See Loc. R. 27.1.