Shaughnessy v. City ( 1997 )

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
No. 97-1081
JOHN J. SHAUGHNESSY,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
CITY OF LACONIA, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
[Hon. Steven J. McAuliffe, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge,
Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
John J. Shaughnessy on brief pro se.
John T. Alexander and Ransmeier & Spellman on brief for
appellees.
September 22, 1997
Per Curiam. In this appeal, pro se in forma
pauperis appellant John Shaughnessy objects to the dismissal
of his civil rights action asserting a due process claim.1
1
The action was dismissed under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii),
which requires dismissal of an in forma pauperis complaint
"at any time" if it fails to state a claim for relief. We
affirm.
In his suit, Shaughnessy alleged that the City of
Laconia and various individual defendants denied him due
process of law by failing to review or hold a hearing on his
claim that he had not received the veterans employment
preference described in N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. 283 and the
City's affirmative action plan when he applied for the
position of Director of Personnel and Purchasing in 1994 and
for the position of Assessing Technician in 1995.
Shaughnessy failed to state a claim for relief because he
failed to make sufficient factual allegations to show that he
had a property interest in the preference, i.e., that he was
entitled to the preference. See 2 Moore's Federal Practice
12.34[4][a], at 12-71 (3d ed. 1997) ("Dismissal [of a
1While the complaint asserted other claims as well, on
1
appeal Shaugnessy has not presented developed argumentation
regarding those claims. Accordingly, we do not consider
them. See Martinez v. Colon, 54 F.3d 980, 990 (1st Cir.
1995) ("It is settled in this circuit that issues adverted to
on appeal in a perfunctory manner, unaccompanied by some
developed argumentation, are deemed to have been abandoned.")
(quotation marks and citation omitted).
-2-
complaint] is proper if the complaint lacks an allegation
regarding an element necessary to obtain relief."). First,
he did not allege that he had furnished the City proof of his
entitlement to the veterans preference at the time he applied
for employment, as required by N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. 283:7.
That provision states, "Veterans, in order to be entitled to
preference under this subdivision, shall furnish proof of
such entitlement to the hiring authority . . . when applying
for employment." Second, he did not allege that he had
requested the preference on his employment application, as
required by the City's affirmative action plan.
Affirmed.
-3-