
    Danny M. KELLY, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. TOWN OF CHELMSFORD, et al., Defendants, Appellees.
    No. 00-2095.
    United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
    June 14, 2001.
    Danny M. Kelly, on brief pro se.
    Leonard H. Kesten, Deidre Brennan Regan and Brody, Hardoon, Perkins & Kesten, on brief for appellee Town of Chelmsford.
    Before SELYA, Circuit Judge, CAMPBELL and STAHL, Senior Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

After affording plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint which “clearly and concisely” set forth his claims, and after two hearings on the matter, the district court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss. Reviewing the dismissal de novo in light of the briefs and the record, we see no error. The complaint failed to understandably state a cognizable claim for relief and some of the relief demanded was not within the court’s jurisdiction. Plaintiffs memorandum response to the court’s order to clarify suggested that plaintiff was unable or unwilling to cure the deficiencies.

Affirmed.  