Vecchio v. LaMonica

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
No. 96-1338
JOSEPH G. VECCHIO, JR.,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
ANGELO LaMONICA, INDIVIDUALLY AND
AS CHIEF OF POLICE OF THE WINTHROP POLICE DEPARTMENT,
Defendant, Appellee.
ERRATA SHEET
The unpublished opinion of this Court, issued on October 17,
1996, is amended as follows:
On page 2, line 12, replace "LaMonica" with "Vecchio".
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
No. 96-1338
JOSEPH G. VECCHIO, JR.,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
ANGELO LaMONICA, INDIVIDUALLY AND
AS CHIEF OF POLICE OF THE WINTHROP POLICE DEPARTMENT,
Defendant, Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Edward F. Harrington, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Cyr, Circuit Judge,
Boudin, Circuit Judge,
and Ponsor, District Judge.
Paul J. Klehm with whom James B. Krasnoo was on brief for
appellant.
Bradford N. Louison with whom Merrick & Louison was on brief for
appellee.
October 17, 1996
* Of the District of Massachusetts, sitting by designation.
Per Curiam. Plaintiff Joseph Vecchio brought suit under
42 U.S.C. 1983 against Angelo LaMonica, the chief of police
of the Winthrop Police Department. The district court
granted summary judgment for LaMonica on all the federal
claims and remanded Vecchio's two remaining state law claims
to state court. We affirm.
The primary target of Vecchio's suit was LaMonica's
administrative action in suspending Vecchio's gun license --
a matter typically challenged and resolved through state
remedies. This occurred because of Vecchio's alleged failure
to comply with a state statutory requirement that he give
notice of his change of address. Although Vecchio says that
the state statute has been misconstrued, state remedies exist
to redress any such mistake, and nothing here points to a
constitutional violation. See Cross v. Cunningham, 87 F.3d
586, 589 (1st Cir. 1996).
Vecchio has also asserted, as a civil rights violation,
what appears to be a garden-variety defamation claim
concerning the posting in the police station of an anonymous
letter that accuses Vecchio of dealing drugs. But there was
no evidence before the district court to show that this
letter was created by, or at the direction of, LaMonica.
Thus, summary judgment was properly granted even assuming
(dubitante) that any constitutional claim might otherwise be
stated.
-2-
-2-
Despite the spirited efforts of LaMonica's counsel on
appeal, we are satisfied that nothing in this case even
remotely approaches the type of government conduct that gives
rise to a section 1983 action for due process violations.
Affirmed.
-3-
-3-