USCA1 Opinion

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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            The unpublished  opinion  of this  Court,  issued  on October  17,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                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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-