USCA1 Opinion

      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION--NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]

                 United States Court of Appeals

                     For the First Circuit











No. 98-1396



                       JOHN C. VOTTA, JR.,



                      Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                v.



                    KELLY L. SECREST, ET AL.,



                      Defendants, Appellees.







           APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS



            [Hon. Nancy Gertner, U.S. District Judge]







                              Before



                     Torruella, Chief Judge,

               Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges.

                                

                                





     John C. Votta, Jr. on brief pro se.

     Sheila E. McCravy and Brian Rogal on brief for appellees Kelly

Secrest and Byron Rizos.

     Scott Harshbarger, Attorney General, and Matthew Q. Berge,

Assistant Attorney General, on brief for appellees Commonwealth of

Massachusetts and Margaret Farmer.









December 30, 1998









                                

                                

      Per Curiam.  Following his conviction in state court on

    speeding and littering charges, plaintiff John Votta filed this

    42 U.S.C.  1983 action against two members of the state police

    and other defendants, alleging an assortment of constitutional

    and state-law claims.  The district court dismissed the

    complaint in due course under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).  Having

    reviewed the record in full, we agree that no cognizable  1983

    claim has been stated.  See, e.g., Figueroa v. Rivera, 147 F.3d

    77, 80-81 (1st Cir. 1998) (applying Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.

    477 (1994)); Judge v. City of Lowell, ___ F.3d ___, 1998 WL

    789187, at *6-*7 (1st Cir. 1998) (requiring specific,

    nonconclusory factual allegations in support of claim that

    defendant acted with improper motive); Roche v. John Hancock

    Mutual Life Ins. Co., 81 F.3d 249, 256 (1st Cir. 1996)

    (discussing malicious prosecution); Perez-Ruiz v. Crespo-

    Guillen, 25 F.3d 40, 42-43 (1st Cir. 1994) (same); Santiago v.

    Fenton, 891 F.2d 373, 388 (1st Cir. 1989) (discussing abuse of

    process).

        While the judgment is silent on the matter, we assume that

    the district court intended to dismiss the supplemental state-

    law claims without prejudice for want of jurisdiction.  See,

    e.g., United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966);

    Figueroa Ruiz v. Alegria, 896 F.2d 645, 650 (1st Cir. 1990). 

    With that clarification, the order of dismissal is affirmed.  

        Affirmed.  See Loc. R. 27.1.