WPC ϊm񎢎tx`M^1'ǫą(!4B}ߛyck4eL jY! +|&gRJ8QI="YB'^׀pq||vf.LXHj+-C*jJo0 T+(`QyN؏WnBi%ڪL= [ܖz6@h!w ?clF7EVq,Ym"9}@u<OkK17Sψh!R(Mu\Ȼ$lM 9=",ƩV?Ka?]l' :RrX.VԖ{MɐaO"|D˧ kQO'˦\LڹF4*5MQ{&)Z΄el,Z~ y 쉞e(#!0 %Q 0DW 0(U: 0UNUF^ w@&4fNz| mMEfa 0C 0U*U.b U> UBK b  \   BHP LaserJet 4,,,,,,0X(#$  0  ($<6X9`("Courier NewTT(':2u$ !        0  vr Z6Times New Roman RegularQ 9Z+.Courier New Regular=, VEV EEe++003|x UTABLE A($    (k2!$ !  X&XXXX|XXX&  0  .%2A`Arial<6X9`(Courier- -<\( 9Z+&Courier Regular<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi- -  u$      1    _=nXdd=ӀAppellantalsoconclusorilystatesthatheisappealingthe  districtcourt'sdenialofhismotiontovacatetheorderofdismissal.Appellantfailedtodevelopthatargumentanditisthereforewaived.SeeUnitedStatesv.Zannino,895F.2d1,17 X (1stCir.1990). R u$      2    _=nXdd=ӀThegovernment'slaterterminationofcriminalchargesis  immaterialbecauseitsdecisionwasnotbasedonthereturnoftheseizedmaterials.  u$      1    _ԀAppellantalsoconclusorilystatesthatheisappealingthe  districtcourt'sdenialofhismotiontovacatetheorderofdismissal.Appellantfailedtodevelopthatargumentanditisthereforewaived.SeeUnitedStatesv.Zannino,895F.2d1,17 X (1stCir.1990).   u$      1    _=V_Xdd=ӀAppellantalsoconclusorilystatesthatheisappealingthe  districtcourt'sdenialofhismotiontovacatetheorderofdismissal.Appellantfailedtodevelopthatargumentanditisthereforewaived.SeeUnitedStatesv.Zannino,895F.2d1,17 X (1stCir.1990).  u$      2    _ԀThegovernment'slaterterminationofcriminalchargesis  immaterialbecauseitsdecisionwasnotbasedonthereturnoftheseizedmaterials. d !  _ ? * !XOXXXTXXO     UnitedStatesCourtofAppealsoT  FortheFirstCircuit XOXoX6iXXXO  A') ` dE<s ` A t  No.011309@,,"DANARICHARDSON,@ Plaintiff,Appellant,@tt)v.@` ` OFFICERBRIANMILLER,DETECTIVESTEVENBLAIR,  BOSTONPOLICEDEPARTMENT,ANDCITYOFBOSTON,@@*Defendants,Appellees.A') ` dE<:` A ; @@ddAPPEALFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURTFORTHEDISTRICTOFMASSACHUSETTS@@dd[Hon.WilliamG.Young,U.S.DistrictJudge] 2 A') ` dE<` A  @@'Before@@((Selya,CircuitJudge, )y  Coffin,SeniorCircuitJudge, A! andLipez,CircuitJudge.  " A') ` dE<!` A !a%       AndrewM.Fischer,withwhomJason&Fischerwasonbrief,for !8' appellant.  EveA.PiemonteStacey,withwhom_Merita_ԀA.Hopkinswason x#) brief,forappellees.*'ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,( dd ,( dd ,( dd +   &!-  0&&L". 0Jnauryanuary29.2002 0&!(#1" 0(&L"2  (  * !  +d&4?     +d&4?   =nXdd=86iXXdXXd8<( ,XX hXXX<  COFFIN,SeniorCircuitJudge. DanaRichardsonappealsthe  districtcourt'sdenialofattorney'sfeesinhiscivilrightscaseagainsttheCityofBoston("theCity").Findingnomanifestabuseofdiscretion,weaffirm.@#I.Background @    OnJanuary25,2000,appellantwasapassengerinavehicledrivenbyAngelaHowell.Apoliceofficerstoppedthevehicleandrequestedadriver'slicensefromHowell,whoinsteadproducedaStateofMichiganphotoidentificationof"Donald_Beane_."Appellant'spicturewason_Beane_'sidentification.Theofficeraskedappellanttoidentifyhimself.TheofficerbecamesuspiciousandrequestedfurtheridentificationwhenappellanttoldhimhewasDanaRichardson.Inappellant'swalletwerecreditcardsandpictureidentifications,allin_Beane_'sname.Richardsonalsopossessedsomepersonalpapers,includinghismother'sdeathcertificateandmortgagepapers.Theofficerseizedallofthepapers,creditcardsandidentifications.  Appellantrepeatedlyandunsuccessfullysoughtreturnoftheseizeditemsandultimatelyfiledalawsuitinstatecourtseekingtohavetheitemsreturnedandthegovernmentenjoinedfromusingthematerialsinanycriminalinvestigationofhim.TheCityremovedthecasetofederalcourt,andthedistrictcourtheardoralargumentonappellant'smotionforarestrainingorder.Duringthehearing,atthedistrictcourt'snudging,thepartiesagreedthattheCitywouldreturnsomeoftheseizedmaterialstoappellant.Becauseofthecontinuinginvestigation,however,most ,`'2 _ofthereturnedmaterialsweretobephotocopiesratherthanoriginals.Thedistrictcourtthendeniedasmootappellant'smotion.Aftercontinuednegotiationbetweentheparties,theCityreturnedappellant'swalletandsomeofhispersonalpapers.Itneverreturnedthesocalled"_Beane_Ԁdocuments"becausetheypertainedtothecriminalinvestigation.Appellantwasarrestedsoonthereafterandchargedwithfourcountsofcreditcardfraud,butthechargeswerelaterdroppedforlackofsufficientevidence.  Afterthematerialswerereturned,appellantofferedseveraltimestodismissthecase.Thepartiescouldnotagree,however,onwhetherthecasewouldbedismissedwith,orwithout,prejudice.Appellanteventuallymovedtovoluntarilydismissandfiledapetitionforattorney'sfeesandcostsasaprevailingpartyundertheAttorney'sFeeAwardsActof1976("theFeesAct"),42U.S.C.1988,anditsstateanalogue,Mass.Gen.Lawsch.12,11I.Thedistrictcourtdismissedthecase,withprejudice,butdeniedthefeepetition,reasoningthatappellantwasnotaprevailingpartyascontemplatedbythestatutesbecausethecourtdidnotissueanysubstantiverulingsandthecasedidnotproceedtotrial.Appellantappealsfromthatorder. #  1       `"& @II.StandardofReview #@(   Wehavelongheldthatwearehighlydeferentialtoadistrictcourt'sdecisionwhethertoawardattorney'sfees,andthuswill '`", setasideitsrulingonlyifthatrulingconstituteda"manifestabuseofdiscretion."GayOfficersActionLeaguev.PuertoRico, @ 247F.3d288,292(1stCir.2001);seealsoFoleyv.Cityof   Lowell,948F.2d10,18(1stCir.2001).Ourstrict,butsensible, `  standardreflectsthefactthatonlythedistrictcourthasthe"intimateknowledgeofthenuancesoftheunderlyingcase."Gay    OfficersActionLeague,247F.3dat292.Wethereforeconfineour `  reviewtowhetherthedistrictcourthasmadeamistakeoflaworincorrectlyweighed(orfailedtoweigh)afactorinitsdecision.SeeFosterv.MydasAssoc.,Inc.,943F.2d139,143(1stCir.  1991).@,,"III.Discussion 0 A.0  "PrevailingParty"StatusUndertheFeesActX% XXXn#XnX XX%#XCXXXpandthe p MassachusettsCivilRightsLaw8(#(#   UndertheFeesAct,42U.S.C.1988,thedistrictcourtmayawardreasonableattorney'sfeestoaprevailingpartyinacivilrightscasebroughtunder42U.S.C.1983.Likemanyothersbeforeit,thekeytothiscaseiswhethertheplaintiffachieved"prevailingparty"status.Typically,aplaintiffisdeemedtohaveprevailedifhecanshowthathe"succeededonanimportantissueinthecase,therebygainingatleastsomeofthebenefithesoughtinbringingsuit."GayOfficersActionLeague,247F.3dat $ ) 293(citing_Hensley_v._Eckerhart_,461U.S.424,433(1983)).Tobe H&!+ sure,aplaintiffneednotprevailoneveryclaimandobtainallreliefsoughttoqualifyasaprevailingparty.E.g.,Farrarv. h)$/ Hobby,506U.S.103,111(1992);_Hewitt_v.Helms,482U.S.755, *H&1 760(1987).Evenso,"[_r]espect_Ԁforordinarylanguagerequires ,'3 thataplaintiffreceiveatleastsomereliefonthemeritsofhisclaimbeforehecanbesaidtoprevail."_Hewitt_,482U.S.at760 @ (citing_Hanrahan_v.Hampton,446U.S.754,757(1980)).     Here,althoughsomeofappellant'smaterialswerereturnedtohim(namely,themortgagepapers,hismother'sdeathcertificateandafewotherdocuments),mostofthereturnedmaterialswerecopiesratherthanoriginals,andthepoliceneverreturnedthe_Beane_Ԁdocuments.Appellantarguesthatallof"his"possessionswerereturned,andthatheneversoughtthereturnofthe_Beane_documents.However,thatpropositionisclearlyrefutedbythecomplaint,whichseeksthereturnof"allmaterialsseized."  Moreover,andmorefundamentally,thecruxofthecomplaintisthattheseizureofthematerialsshouldhavebeendeemedunlawfulandunconstitutional,andthattheCitythusshouldhavebeenenjoinedfromusingthematerialsinitsinvestigation.Thereturnofthedocuments,however,didnotpreventtheCityfromcontinuingitsinvestigation.# #  2      ׀Tothecontrary,thepartiesagreedthatall   butafewofthereturnedmaterialswouldbephotocopiedsothatlawenforcementauthoritiescouldcontinuetheirinvestigation.Giventhelimitednatureoftheplaintiff'ssuccess,neitherthedistrictcourt'sfindingthatappellantwasnotaprevailingparty,noritsrefusaltoawardattorney'sfees,wasanabuseofdiscretion,letaloneamanifestone.See,e.g.,GayOfficers '`", ActionLeague,247F.3dat294(acourtis"wellwithinitsrights (#. todenyprevailingpartystatus"ifplaintiff'ssuccesswas"purelytechnicalorde_minimis_")(internalcitationomitted).  Appellantalsoarguesthatheachievedhisgoalsinthislawsuitbyreceivingsomethingakintoaconsentdecree.See_Maher_ `  v._Gagne_,448U.S.122,129(1980)(permittingattorney'sfeesin  @ judiciallyapprovedsettlements).Heconcedesthatthedistrictcourtneitherorderedthepartiestocomply,norruledonthemerits,yethecontendsthatthedistrictcourt'sbrokeringofthedealwasadefacto,ifnotdejure,settlement.Thedistrictcourt,however,foundtothecontraryandconcludedthatitsinvolvementinthecase"innoway_represent[ed_]theCourt'sadjudicationoftheparties'claims."Thedistrictcourtisobviouslyinthebestpositiontoevaluateitsownactionsandtheirweight.Cf._Lefkowitz_v.Fair,816F.2d17,22(1stCir. P 1997)(explainingthat"uncertaintyastothemeaningandintendmentofadistrictcourtordercansometimesbestbedispelledbydeferencetotheviewsofthewritingjudge").Therecordprovidesnobasisforsecondguessingthecourt'sconclusionthatitsinterventionwasnottheequivalentofaconsentdecree,andwethereforefindnoabuseofdiscretioninthecourt'sdeterminationthatappellantdidnotprevailinhislawsuit.  Likewise,appellantisnotaprevailingpartyundersection11IoftheMassachusettsCivilRightsLaw.Appellantcontendsthat '`", heisentitledtoattorney'sfeesundertheMassachusettslawbecause,unlikethefederalFeesAct,whichpermitsadistrictcourttoexercisediscretioninawardingattorney'sfees,the +'2 phrasingoftheMassachusettsstatuteisabsolute:"Anyaggrievedpersonorpersonswhoprevailinanactionauthorizedbythissectionshallbeentitledtoanawardofthecostsofthe   litigationandreasonableattorneys'feesinanamounttobefixedbythecourt."Mass.Gen.Lawsch.12,11(emphasisadded).Thus,appellantargues,heisautomaticallyentitledtoattorney'sfees.However,ourconclusionthatappellantwasnotaprevailingpartyappliestoboththestateandfederalstatutes.TheMassachusettsattorney'sfeesprovisionisthereforeinapplicable.B.&  Ԁ0  TheCatalystTheory(#(#   Untilrecently,aplaintiffinacivilrightsdisputecouldalsoachieveprevailing'1Ԁpartystatusunderthecatalysttheory.Thistheorypermittedattorney'sfeesifalawsuitactedasa"'catalyst'inpromptingdefendantstotakeactiontomeetplaintiff'sclaims...despitethelackofjudicialinvolvementintheresult."Nadeauv._Helgemoe_,581F.2d275,279(1stCir.  p 1978).Inotherwords,aplaintiffwouldbedeemedtohave"prevailed"inalawsuit"evenifthere[was]noawardorinjunction,solongasthelawsuiteffectivelyachievedafavorableresultsoughtbytheplaintiff."Stantonv.S.BerkshireRegional `"& Sch.Dist.,197F.3d574,577(1stCir.1999). #@(   TheSupremeCourt,however,hasexpresslyrejectedthecatalysttheory.See_Buckhannon_ԀBd.andCareHome,IncX% XXXn#XnX XX%5#XCXXXp.v.W.Va. '`", _Dep't_ԀofHealthandHumanRes.,121S.Ct.1835(2001).Although (#. _Buckhannon_appliedtotheFairHousingAmendmentsActandthe 0*%0 AmericanswithDisabilitiesAct,theCourtspecificallynotedthat +'2 thefeeshiftingprovisionsofseveralotherstatutes,includingtheFeesAct,shouldbeinterpretedconsistently.Seeid.at1839 @ n.4.Althoughweapprovedthecatalysttheoryinthepast,see,   e.g.,Nadeau,581F.2dat279,weareconstrainedtofollowthe `  Court'sbroaddirectiveandjoinseveralofoursistercircuitsinconcludingthatthecatalysttheorymaynolongerbeusedtoawardattorney'sfeesundertheFeesAct.See,e.g.,X% XXXn#XnX XX%9#XCXXXpChambersv.Ohio `  _Dep't_ԀofHuman_Servs_.,273F.3d690,69193(6thCir.2001);   Johnsonv.ITTAerospace/CommunicationsDiv.ofITTIndus.,Inc., 0  272F.3d498,500(7thCir.2001);N.Y.State_Fed'n_ԀofTaxi  Drivers,Inc.v.WestchesterCountyTaxiandLimousine_Comm'n_,272 P F.3d154,158(2dCir.2001);Griffinv._Steeltek_,Inc.,261F.3d 0 1026,1029(10thCir.2001);Johnsonv.Rodriguez,260F.3d493, p 495(5thCir.2001);Bennettv._Yoshina_,259F.3d1097,110001 P (9thCir.2001).  Appellantarguesthatthetheoryisstillviableunder  p Massachusettslaw,andreasonsthatthelawsuitwasacatalystforchangebecausetheCityvoluntarilyagreedtoreturntheseizedproperty.However,hedoesnotcite(norhavewefound)asinglecaseinwhichMassachusettseverhasrecognizedthetheoryasabasisforrecoveryunderthestatecivilrightsstatute.Tothecontrary,itappearsthattheMassachusettscourtshaveappliedthecatalysttheoryonlyinawardingfeesundertheFeesAct.  Evenassuming_arguendo_thatMassachusettsrecognizesthe (#. catalystdoctrine,appellant'sclaimneverthelessfails.Regardlessofthereturnofsomeoftheseizedmaterials,theCity +'2 wasstillabletoundertakeitscriminalinvestigationofappellantandtheCityneverreturnedmanyoftheseizeditems.Thus,thedistrictcourtconcludedthat"inthetotalityofthecircumstances,itisobviousthatRichardsondidnotprevailinanyplausiblesenseoftheword."Wefindnoabuseofdiscretioninthatdetermination.See,e.g.,Pearsonv.Fair,980F.2d37,44    (1stCir.1992)(explainingthatpartyseekingfeesundercatalysttheorymustshowthat"whateverchanges[his]lawsuitcaused...werenotde_minimis_."). 0     Affirmed .X% XXXn       +d&4?  XV_XXX    =nXdd=8nXXdd8<( ,XX hXXX<  COFFIN,SeniorCircuitJudge. DanaRichardsonappealsthe  districtcourt'sdenialofattorney'sfeesinhiscivilrightscaseagainsttheCityofBoston("theCity").Findingnomanifestabuseofdiscretion,weaffirm.@#I.Background @    OnJanuary25,2000,appellantwasapassengerinavehicledrivenbyAngelaHowell.Apoliceofficerstoppedthevehicleandrequestedadriver'slicensefromHowell,whoinsteadproducedaStateofMichiganphotoidentificationof"DonaldBeane."Appellant'spicturewasonBeane'sidentification.Theofficeraskedappellanttoidentifyhimself.TheofficerbecamesuspiciousandrequestedfurtheridentificationwhenappellanttoldhimhewasDanaRichardson.Inappellant'swalletwerecreditcardsandpictureidentifications,allinBeane'sname.Richardsonalsopossessedsomepersonalpapers,includinghismother'sdeathcertificateandmortgagepapers.Theofficerseizedallofthepapers,creditcardsandidentifications.  Appellantrepeatedlyandunsuccessfullysoughtreturnoftheseizeditemsandultimatelyfiledalawsuitinstatecourtseekingtohavetheitemsreturnedandthegovernmentenjoinedfromusingthematerialsinanycriminalinvestigationofhim.TheCityremovedthecasetofederalcourt,andthedistrictcourtheardoralargumentonappellant'smotionforarestrainingorder.Duringthehearing,atthedistrictcourt'snudging,thepartiesagreedthatappelleewouldreturnsomeoftheseizedmaterialstoappellant.Becauseofthecontinuinginvestigation,however,most ,`'2 ofthereturnedmaterialsweretobephotocopiesratherthanoriginals.Thedistrictcourtthendeniedasmootappellant'smotion.Aftercontinuednegotiationbetweentheparties,appelleereturnedappellant'swalletandsomeofhispersonalpapers.Itneverreturnedthesocalled"Beanedocuments"becausetheypertainedtothecriminalinvestigation.Appellantwasarrestedsoonthereafterandchargedwithfourcountsofcreditcardfraud,butthechargeswerelaterdroppedforlackofsufficientevidence.  Afterthematerialswerereturned,appellantofferedseveraltimestodismissthecase.Thepartiescouldnotagree,however,onwhetherthecasewouldbedismissedwith,orwithout,prejudice.Appellanteventuallyunilaterallymovedtovoluntarilydismissandfiledapetitionforattorney'sfeesandcostsasaprevailingpartyundertheAttorney'sFeeAwardsActof1976("theFeesAct"),42U.S.C.1988,anditsstateanalogue,Mass.Gen.Lawsch.12,11I.Thedistrictcourtdismissedthecase,withprejudice,butdeniedthefeepetition,reasoningthatappellantwasnotaprevailingpartyascontemplatedbythestatutesbecausethecourtdidnotissueanysubstantiverulingsandthecasedidnotproceedtotrial.Appellantappealsfromthatorder. " #  1       `"& @II.StandardofReview #@(   Wehavelongheldthatwearehighlydeferentialtoadistrictcourt'sdecisionwhethertoawardattorney'sfees,andthuswill '`", setasideitsrulingonlyifitconstituteda"manifestabuseofdiscretion."GayOfficersActionLeaguev.PuertoRico,247F.3d @ 288,292(1stCir.2001);seealsoFoleyv.CityofLowell,948   F.2d10,18(1stCir.2001).Ourstrict,butsensible,standardreflectsthefactthatonlythedistrictcourthasthe"intimateknowledgeofthenuancesoftheunderlyingcase."GayOfficers    ActionLeague,247F.3dat292.Wethereforeconfineourreviewto `  whetherthedistrictcourthasmadeamistakeoflaworincorrectlyweighed(orfailedtoweigh)afactorinitsdecision.SeeFoster 0  v.MydasAssoc.,Inc.,943F.2d139,143(1stCir.1991).  @,,"III.Discussion P A.0  "PrevailingParty"StatusUndertheFeesAct  #XXXXV_ #XV_XXX  andthe 0 MassachusettsCivilRightsLaw(#(#    UndertheFeesAct,42U.S.C.1988,thedistrictcourtmayawardreasonableattorney'sfeestoaprevailingpartyinacivilrightscasebroughtunder42U.S.C.1983.Likemanyothersbeforeit,thekeytothiscaseiswhethertheplaintiffachieved"prevailingparty"status.Typically,aplaintiffisdeemedtohaveprevailedifhecanshowthathe"succeededonanimportantissueinthecase,therebygainingatleastsomeofthebenefithesoughtinbringingsuit."GayOfficersActionLeague,247F.3dat (#x' 293(citingHensleyv.Eckerhart,461U.S.424,433(1983)).Tobe $ ) sure,aplaintiffneednotprevailoneveryclaimandobtainallreliefsoughttoqualifyasaprevailingparty.E.g.,Farrarv. '(#- Hobby,506U.S.103,111(1992);Hewittv.Helms,482U.S.755, h)$/ 760(1987).Evenso,"[r]espectforordinarylanguagerequires *H&1 thataplaintiffreceiveatleastsomereliefonthemeritsofhis ,'3 claimbeforehecanbesaidtoprevail."Hewitt,482U.S.at760  (citingHanrahanv.Hampton,446U.S.754,757(1980)). @   Here,althoughsomeofappellant'smaterialswerereturnedtohim(namely,themortgagepapers,hismother'sdeathcertificateandafewotherdocuments),mostofthereturnedmaterialswerecopiesratherthanoriginals,andthepoliceneverreturnedtheBeanedocuments.Appellantarguesthatallof"his"possessionswerereturned,andthatheneversoughtthereturnoftheBeanedocuments.However,thatpropositionisclearlyrefutedbythecomplaint,whichseeksthereturnof"allmaterialsseized."  Moreover,andmorefundamentally,thecruxofthecomplaintisthattheseizureofthematerialsshouldhavebeendeemedunlawfulandunconstitutional,andthatappelleethusshouldhavebeenenjoinedfromusingthematerialsinitsinvestigation.Thereturnofthedocuments,however,didnotpreventappelleefromcontinuingitsinvestigation.  #  2      ׀Tothecontrary,thepartiesagreedthatall  p butafewofthereturnedmaterialswouldbephotocopiedsothatlawenforcementauthoritiescouldcontinuetheirinvestigation.Giventhelimitednatureoftheplaintiff'ssuccess,neitherthedistrictcourt'sfindingthatappellantwasnotaprevailingparty,noritsrefusaltoawardattorney'sfees,wasanabuseofdiscretion,letaloneamanifestone.See,e.g.,GayOfficers % * ActionLeague,247F.3dat294(acourtis"wellwithinitsrights '`", todenyprevailingpartystatus"ifplaintiff'ssuccesswas"purelytechnicalordeminimis")(internalcitationomitted).  Appellantalsoarguesthatheachievedhisgoalsinthislawsuitbyreceivingsomethingakintoaconsentdecree.SeeMaher `  v.Gagne,448U.S.122,129(1980)(permittingattorney'sfeesin  @ judiciallyapprovedsettlements).Heconcedesthatthedistrictcourtneitherorderedthepartiestocomply,norruledonthemerits,yethecontendsthatthedistrictcourt'sbrokeringofthedealwasadefacto,ifnotdejure,settlement.Thedistrictcourt,however,foundtothecontraryandconcludedthatitsinvolvementinthecase"innowayrepresent[ed]theCourt'sadjudicationoftheparties'claims."Thedistrictcourtisobviouslyinthebestpositiontoevaluateitsownactionsandtheirweight.Therecordprovidesnobasisforsecondguessingthecourt'sconclusionthatitsinterventionwasnottheequivalentofaconsentdecree,andwethereforefindnoabuseofdiscretioninthecourt'sdeterminationthatappellantdidnotprevailinhislawsuit.  Likewise,appellantisnotaprevailingpartyundersection11IoftheMassachusettsCivilRightsLaw.Appellantcontendsthat `"& heisentitledtoattorney'sfeesundertheMassachusettslawbecauseunlikethefederalFeesAct,whichpermitsadistrictcourttoexercisediscretioninawardingattorney'sfees,thephrasingoftheMassachusettsstatuteisabsolute:"Anyaggrievedpersonorpersonswhoprevailinanactionauthorizedbythissectionshall 0*%0 beentitledtoanawardofthecostsofthelitigationand +'2 reasonableattorneys'feesinanamounttobefixedbythecourt."  Id.(emphasisadded).Thus,appellantargues,heisautomatically @ entitledtoattorney'sfees.However,ourconclusionthatappellantwasnotaprevailingpartyappliestoboththestateandfederalstatutes.TheMassachusettsattorney'sfeesprovisionisthereforeinapplicable.B.&    0  TheCatalystTheory` (#(#   Untilrecently,aplaintiffinacivilrightsdisputecouldalsoachieveprevailing'/Ԁpartystatusunderthecatalysttheory.Thistheorypermittedattorney'sfeesifalawsuitactedasa"'catalyst'inpromptingdefendantstotakeactiontomeetplaintiff'sclaims...despitethelackofjudicialinvolvementintheresult,"Nadeauv.Helgemoe,581F.2d275,279(1stCir. p 1978).Inotherwords,solongastherewasamaterialalterationofthelegalrelationshipbetweentheparties,nojudicialinterventionwasrequired.SeeFarrarv.Hobby,506U.S.103,111  p (1992).  TheSupremeCourt,however,hasexpresslyrejectedthecatalysttheory.SeeBuckhannonBd.andCareHome,Inc  .v.W.Va.  $ Dep'tofHealthandHumanRes.,121S.Ct.1835(2001).Although `"& BuckhannonappliedtotheFairHousingAmendmentsActandthe #@( AmericanswithDisabilitiesAct,theCourtspecificallynotedthatthefeeshiftingprovisionsofseveralotherstatutes,includingtheFeesAct,shouldbeinterpretedconsistently.SeeBuckhannon, (#. 121S.Ct.at1839n.4.Althoughweapprovedthecatalysttheoryinthepast,see,e.g.,Nadeau,581F.2dat279,weareconstrainedto +'2 followtheCourt'sbroaddirectiveandjoinseveralofoursistercircuitsinconcludingthatthecatalysttheorymaynolongerbeusedtoawardattorney'sfeesundertheFeesAct.See,e.g.,     Chambersv.OhioDep'tofHumanServs.,273F.3d690,69193(6th `  Cir.2001);Johnsonv.ITTAerospace/CommunicationsDiv.ofITT  @ Industries,Inc.,272F.3d498,500(7thCir.2001);N.Y.State    Fed'nofTaxiDrivers,Inc.v.WestchesterCountyTaxiand `  LimousineComm'n,272F.3d154,158(2dCir.2001);Griffinv.   Steeltek,Inc.,261F.3d1026,1029(10thCir.2001);Johnsonv. 0  Rodriguez,260F.3d493,495(5thCir.2001);Bennettv.Yoshina,  259F.3d1097,110001(9thCir.2001).  Appellantarguesthatthetheoryisstillviableunder 0 Massachusettslaw,andreasonsthatthelawsuitwasacatalystforchangebecauseappelleevoluntarilyagreedtoreturntheseizedproperty.EvenassumingarguendothatMassachusettswillcontinue  torecognizethisdoctrine,appellant'sclaimneverthelessfailsbecauseregardlessofthereturnofsomeoftheseizedmaterials,thelegalrelationshipbetweenthepartieswasnotdemonstrablyaltered:appelleewasstillabletoundertakeitscriminalinvestigationofappellantandappelleeneverreturnedmanyoftheseizeditems.Thelawsuitthereforedidnothaveacatalyticeffect.   Affirmed .  XnXXXn  #XnXXXn6=#  XnXXXn    #XnXXXn}p#