We grant the appellees’ motions to remove the default and for summary disposition, and we deny the appellant’s correlative motions. 1

After carefully considering the record and briefs on appeal, we affirm the lower court’s judgment substantially for the reasons stated below. The appellant failed to allege facts suggesting that the appellees engaged in intentional misconduct or acted with reckless or callous indifference to constitutional rights. Neither Appellee Wall’s status as correction’s director nor his alleged negligence in supervising and hiring prison staff suffices as a predicate for personal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Germany v. Vance, 868 F.2d 9, 17-19 (1st Cir. 1989); Gutierrez-Rodriguez v. Cartagena, 882 F.2d 553, 560-62 (1st Cir. 1989). Similarly, the appellant did not allege sufficient facts to state cognizable claims against the prison librarian or education director. By like token, he presented no proper basis for amending the complaint.

Affirmed. Loc. R. 27(c).