[NOT FOR PUBLICATION–NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT] United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

No. 99-1997 BARRY T. MAZZAGLIA, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ET AL., Defendants, Appellees.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE [Hon. Paul J. Barbadoro, U.S. District Judge]

Before Lynch, Circuit Judge, Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge, and Lipez, Circuit Judge.

Barry T. Mazzaglia on brief pro se.

June 23, 2000 Per Curiam. The judgment is affirmed for the reasons enumerated by the magistrate judge in his report and adopted by the district judge. We add one procedural comment. The magistrate judge was authorized to conduct a preliminary review of the in forma pauperis complaint and to recommend a dismissal thereof, whether or not plaintiff was in custody at the relevant time. If plaintiff was a prisoner, then 28 U.S.C. § 1915A would have governed; if he was not, then 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) would have applied.

The same analysis would have been involved in either case.

See, e.g., McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 604 (6th Cir. 1997) (describing the two provisions as "essentially identical").

Affirmed.

-2-