USCA1 Opinion

       [NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]

                 United States Court of Appeals

                     For the First Circuit











No. 98-2245



                          JOSE RAMIREZ,



                      Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                v.



        DONALD W. WYATT DETENTION CENTER, OFFICER GIORGIO

                  AND CORNELL CORRECTIONS, INC.,



                      Defendants, Appellees.







           APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                 FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND



             [Hon. Mary M. Lisi, U.S. District Judge]







                              Before



                      Lynch, Circuit Judge,

                 Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge,

                   and Lipez, Circuit Judge.

                                

                                

                                

                                

                                

     Jose M. Ramirez on brief pro se.

     Michael C. Donahue, M. Christine Breslin and Gelerman, Cashman

& Donahue on brief for appellees.











August 31, 1999







                                

                                

            Per Curiam.  Pro se plaintiff Jose Ramirez, a federal

  prisoner, appeals a district court judgment that dismissed his

  42 U.S.C.  1983 complaint against Cornell Corrections, Inc.

  and its employee, officer Dino Giorgio, for the failure to

  state a claim upon which relief can be granted.  See Fed. R.

  Civ. P. 12(b)(6).  Plaintiff has neither alleged nor argued

  that he lacks an adequate state law remedy; thus he may not

  maintain an action for the violation of his right to due

  process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.  See, e.g.,

  Romero-Barcelo v. Hernandez-Agosto, 75 F.3d 23, 33 (1st Cir.

  1996); Watson v. Caton, 984 F.2d 537, 540-41 (1st Cir. 1993). 

  His allegations also fall well short of stating a claim under

  the Eighth Amendment.  See, e.g., Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S.

  825, 834 (1994); Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298-303

  (1991). Plaintiff has waived any Fourth Amendment claim by

  failing to argue same on appeal.

            The remaining arguments that appellant asserts on

  appeal are patently meritless.  Accordingly, the judgment of

  the district court is affirmed.  See Local Rule 27.1.