Hicks v. Correction ( 1999 )

[NOT FOR PUBLICATIONNOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT] United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 99-1033 SHANNON E. HICKS, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. MASSACHUSETTS DEPT. OF CORRECTION, M. MALONEY, COMMISSIONER, BRIDGEWATER STATE HOSPITAL, Defendants, Appellees, MARICOPA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, NATE JACKSON, MARICOPA COUNTY CORRECTIONAL HEALTH SERVICES, Interested Parties. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. Patti B. Saris, U.S. District Judge] Before Selya, Boudin and Lynch, Circuit Judges. Shannon E. Hicks on brief pro se. Nancy A. White, Special Assistant Attorney General, and Beatriz E. Van Meek, Counsel, Department of Corrections, on Motion for Summary Disposition. September 14, 1999 Per Curiam. Shannon Hicks appeals pro se from the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. 1983 action seeking damages against the Massachusetts Department of Corrections, Commissioner Michael Maloney, and Bridgewater State Hospital based on alleged violations of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers ("IAD"). Upon careful review of the record and filings in this court, we affirm essentially for the reasons stated by the district court in its December 4, 1998 memorandum and order. We add that Hicks has made no argument that the district court erred in denying his motion to supplement the complaint, and any claims that he may have against the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, Nate Jackson, or the Maricopa County Correctional Health Services are not before us. In addition, his 1983 law suit below was limited to alleged violations of the IAD, and any claims that he may have for violation of the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, or the Massachusetts Rules of Criminal Procedure are not before us. Affirmed.