USCA1 Opinion

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

____________________

No. 97-1273

SAMUEL JONES,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

MASSACHUSETTS BAY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY AND CHRISTOPHER

J. BLACH,

Defendants, Appellees.

____________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

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

___________________

____________________

Before

Selya, Circuit Judge,

_____________
Aldrich, Senior Circuit Judge,
____________________
and Boudin, Circuit Judge.
_____________

____________________

Samuel Jones on brief pro se.

____________
Merita A. Hopkins and Dawna McIntyre on brief for appellees.
_________________
______________

____________________

November 6, 1997
____________________

Per Curiam.
___________

Samuel Jones

appeals

from the

district

court's dismissal of

his action asserting federal

and state

claims against the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority

(the "MBTA") and

of Boston.

Christopher Blach, an employee

We affirm.

First, given

which

resolved

district

MBTA.

of the City

Jones's settlement agreement with the MBTA

all

of

his claims

court properly

See
___

dismissed

C. Wright, A.

the

Miller &

Practice and Procedure

_______________________

(settlement moots

against

3533.2,

a case).1
1

the

action against

E. Cooper,

at

Second,

MBTA, the

233

the

13A Federal
_______

(2d

the grant

ed.

1984)

of summary

judgment against Jones on his federal claim against Blach was

also

proper.

district

Counsel

court that

he

for

Jones

did not

expressly

intend

informed

to oppose

the

summary

judgment on that

correctly

claim, and Blach's summary

explained

why the

allegations

failed to state a claim for relief.

explained why,

grant

did

under those

abuse

its

in

discretion

the complaint

On appeal, Jones has not

circumstances, it

summary judgment for Blach.

not

judgment motion

was error

to

Third, the district court

by

declining

to

exercise

supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims against Blach

once the court had dismissed the federal claims.

Jones

essentially asked the court to

Counsel for

dismiss the claims and

____________________

1In view
1

of our

finding, there is

whether the MBTA was a party on appeal.

-2-

no need

to determine

made no argument

those claims.

in support of exercising

Under state

law, Jones could have refiled the

state claims in state court.

dismissed for

court

941

See M.G.L. c. 260,

___

"any matter of

for one year after their

F. Supp.

1281, 1295

jurisdiction over

form" may be refiled

32 (claims

in state

dismissal); Duca v. Martins,

____
_______

n.14 (D.

Mass.

1996) (dismissing

state

law

claim

without

plaintiff's federal

prejudice

after

claim because M.G.L.

dismissing

c. 260,

the plaintiff one year in which to refile his claim

court) (citing Liberace v. Conway,

________
______

the

32 gave

in state

31 Mass. App. Ct. 40, 43,

574 N.E.2d 1010, 1012, review denied, 411 Mass. 1102 (1991)).
_____________

On appeal, Jones

suggests that the claims may

barred in state court,

propriety of

but that fact has

the court's

supplemental jurisdiction

Jones has not

256 (1st

not to

state claims.

explained why his malicious

could properly have been brought under

ux. Roche
_________

no bearing on

earlier decision

over the

"now" be time

exercise

Finally,

prosecution claim

1983.

v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co.,

________________________________

Cir. 1996) ("garden-variety"

the

See Roche et
___ ________

81 F.3d 249,

malicious prosecution

claims cannot

counsel

be brought

under

1983).

In

addition, his

represented to the district court that the malicious

prosecution claim

was a state

law claim, and, as

such, the

court properly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction

over it.

Affirmed.
_________

-3-