Barry T. Mazzaglia v. State of New Hampshire

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION–NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]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

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
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 of 2 --