ÿWPCˆ  £ËïÓEС÷ÁLR÷¿ìa¾¼å[4b /’- >Od6qöC E˜—Ücq‚sOfpK"¿þ]ŒÛÕ Òµ¿¢øyàþÏA%òÌh•,eŒÒ› ;å7DrtE¿#8;:™08²:õÕÿãëûÈuÿ¬Ü•FËC-Åm§È ÿôšý± ‘“ÈMjtÅ]Ä-”^ˆBU}4Šy)ÓN> ”QU–²˜g­ø§à*bÚâüß6'"ò¸™7úÃE.­~ê_¿ ŒßðÛÆ‚[ò$ ,lÖ¿î”=¬´‡ítñtu¯žFh‡Û”ž;’åhßâ#ó® ð¸]h¬ìY™óo =Ë?!mä,#ýÉ)•(Õu»oì¸Iáà튌,™SUÄu¤ÊâqÿO„¡MUçñ øBYê0²?wOú¨ŽŽª'MTd(Жjj*‰ ãs½­Oߎì/™Ì=µiß²é‚/óx‚F]fñÛgó³èý"Ç’oç!âBžæƒ\Ñá©í„œ9¯ŸþòjN>ƒi|ò1e.U9<ëáŽú(oðS²ÆS¤í¹U(ŠW¢‚$]f%XŒV]ß}»‰n¡(P ÑbgÞãØªh$ ˆXà/Âyú‚É×gc‡ÐሽV#É´ %} 0Dƒ 0(Ç nTï 0ÆC N nT N_ ©a ^ w4.= m?EVfXaZNn>p®bÆÎÖòìÞ»äääääääUFŸŸŸŸ BåååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååUF U@H ˜HP LaserJet 2300 Series PCL 6ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0TX(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó($¡¡«<þ6X9`("Courier NewTTXXxþ6X@ÉDQX@<þ6X9`(CourierTTXXwþ6X@ÉüQX@(d:2Ø:$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€#7°#X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó«<þ6X9`("Courier NewTTXXxþ6X@ÉDQX@<þ6X9`(CourierTTXXwþ6X@ÉüQX@ ŸÝ ƒØ:$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€##D#X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔEven€if€the€plaintiffs€had€pleaded€and€preserved€theirÐ ° Ðnascent€barrier„removal€claim€(which€they€did€not),€that€claimÐ †Ö Ðwould€fail€on€appeal.€€The€district€court,€at€the€plaintiffs'Ð \¬ Ðurging,€converted€the€motion€to€dismiss€to€a€motion€for€summaryÐ 2‚ Ðjudgment.€€The€two€affidavits€filed€by€the€plaintiffs€(which€areÐ X Ðthe€only€materials€of€evidentiary€quality€in€the€summary€judgmentÐ Þ. Ðrecord)€do€not€contain€facts€sufficient€to€make€out€a€Ô_ÔtrialworthyÔ_ÔÐ ´  Ðissue€on€the€barrier„removal€claim.€€òòSeeóó€òòParkeróó,€225€F.3d€at€5Ð Š Ú Ð(enumerating€the€elements€of€such€a€claim).€€ijÞ4  ¦‚Û4©4ˆ0backup3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀøÀTABLE Aq:\template\OPINIONS\SELYA.WPT Ý ƒØ:$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€##D#X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAt€the€expense€of€carting€coal€to€Newcastle,€we€add€that€theÐ ° Ðregulations€at€issue€here€do€not€actually€require€the€City€toÐ †Ö Ðundertake€the€measures€sought€by€the€plaintiffs.€€The€complaintÐ \¬ Ðprays€for€structural€changes€to€existing€facilities,€including€theÐ 2‚ Ðinstallation€of€curb€cuts€and€the€creation€of€accessible€parkingÐ X Ðspaces.€€But,€the€self„evaluation€regulation€requires€publicÐ Þ. Ðentities€to€evaluate€and€modify€only€"services,€policies,€andÐ ´  Ðpractices,"€not€facilities,€where€needed€to€achieve€Title€IIÐ Š Ú Ðcompliance.€€28€òòóóÔ_ÔC.F.R.Ô_Ô€ðð€35.105(a).€€Similarly,€the€transition€planÐ ` ° Ðregulation€requires€public€entities€to€set€schedules€forÐ 6 †  Ðeffectuating€structural€changes€to€existing€facilities€only€whereÐ  \  Ðstructural€changes€to€facilities€will€be€undertaken€to€comply€withÐ â 2  ÐTitle€II.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€òòóóðð€35.150(d).€€This€formulation€begs€the€questionÐ ¸  Ðof€whether€the€public€entity€has€chosen€structural€changes€toÐ ŽÞ  Ðexisting€facilities€as€a€method€for€achieving€Title€II€compliance.€Ð d´   ÐòòSeeóó€òòid.óó€ðð€35.150(a)(1),€(b)(1).€€€€€- ù-  Ñ Ï Ñ èÝ ƒØ:$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€##D#X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔTheÔ_Ô€City€asserts€that€it€did,€in€fact,€conduct€the€obligatoryÐ ° Ðself„evaluation€and€develop€the€requisite€transition€plan€withinÐ †Ö Ðthe€allotted€time€span.€€Our€resolution€of€this€case€renders€thisÐ \¬ Ðfactual€dispute€immaterial.€€ üÝ ƒØ:$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€##D#X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€regulations€governing€a€public€entity's€construction€ofÐ ° Ðnew€facilities€and€its€voluntary€alteration€of€existing€facilitiesÐ †Ö Ðare€far€more€demanding.€€When€a€public€entity€undertakes€such€anÐ \¬ Ðendeavor,€it€must,€to€the€maximum€extent€feasible,€ensure€that€theÐ 2‚ Ðnewly€constructed€or€renovated€facility€"is€readily€accessible€toÐ X Ðand€usable€by€individuals€with€disabilities."€€28€Ô_ÔC.F.R.Ô_Ô€ððÐ Þ. Ð35.151(a)„(b).€€With€respect€to€newly€constructed€or€alteredÐ ´  Ðstreets€and€sidewalks,€the€regulations€require€the€installation€ofÐ Š Ú Ðcurb€cuts€or€comparable€means€of€ingress€and€egress€for€disabledÐ ` ° Ðpersons.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€ðð€35.151(e)(1)„(2).€€ ±Ý ƒØ:$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€##D#X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔSince€our€decision,€unlike€that€of€the€district€court,€doesÐ ° Ðnot€rest€on€a€lack€of€causation,€it€is€unnecessary€for€us€toÐ †Ö Ðaddress€the€other€ground€raised€in€the€plaintiffs'€motion€forÐ \¬ Ðreconsideration.ÿ.Courier New Regular d<4šÛ 9Z+‹.Courier New Regular(ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑTRXì3Ø'Xà3Ø' Letter3Ø'Letterÿ3Ø'LetterTÑÑ ? Ñò òÓ  ÓÔ‡T°òP°XTXÔÔ‡U°þ°°T°òPÔUnited€States€Court€of€AppealsÔ#†T°òP°°U°þº#ÔÔ#†TX#DX°T°òP›#ÔÐ ° ÐÔ‡T„—„XTX#DÔÔ‡U„P˜„„T„—ÔFor€the€First€Circuitó óÐ „Ô ÐÔ#†T„—„„U„P˜q#ÔÔ#†TX#DX„T„—R#ÔÓÓÌÌßA€') °°` dE< ` AßÐ  à ÐÌÌNo.€05„2697Ð K › ÐÌà@èèìàG.€DAVID€IVERSON€AND€ACCESS€WITH€SUCCESS,€INC.,ˆÐ ÷ G  ÐÌà@ˆˆìàPlaintiffs,€Appellants,ˆÐ £ó  ÐÌà@tt)ìàv.ˆÐ OŸ  ÐÌà@,,"ìàCITY€OF€BOSTON,€ˆÐ ûK  ÐÌà@<< ìàDefendant,€Appellee.ˆÐ §÷ ÐÌßA€') °°` dE<R` AßÐ S£ ÐÌà@œ œ ìàAPPEAL€FROM€THE€UNITED€STATES€DISTRICT€COURTˆÐ 8ˆ ÐÌà@0 0 ìàFOR€THE€DISTRICT€OF€MASSACHUSETTSˆÐ ä4 ÐÌòòóóà@èèìà[Hon.€Nathaniel€M.€Gorton,€òòU.S.€District€Judgeóó]ˆÐ à ÐÌßA€') °°` dE<;` AßÐ <Œ ÐÌà@„„'ìàBeforeˆÐ !q ÐÌÓ  Óà@@((ìà€Ô_ÔSelyaÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔLipezÔ_Ô€and€Howard,Ð Í ÐòòCircuit€Judgesóó.Ð £ó  ÐÌÌßA€') °°` dE<$!` AßÐ %!u# ÐÌÓ  ÓÓ  Óà  àòòNicholas€S.€Ô_ÔGuerreraÔ_Ôóó,€with€whom€òòÔ_ÔShaheenÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔGuerreraÔ_Ô€&€O'Leary€LLCÐ  "Z% Ðóówas€on€brief,€for€appellants.Ð à"0& Ðà  àòòKate€Cookóó,€Assistant€Corporation€Counsel,€for€appellee.Ð ¶#' ÐÌÌÔ*‹ƒ'ddd Xdd Xdd X°(#°(#‹ÔÔ,( dd ÔÔ,( dd ÔÔ,( dd ÔÔ+  ÔÐ 8&ˆ!*8&ˆ! ‹‹ÐÓÂÓÐ SIœ&ì!+  þâ@38897„„‰ þâ@‰‹‹SÐÌJune€30,€2006Ð r'Â"- ÐÐ RHCH(˜#."  þâ@38897  þâ@ ‹‹RÐÐ(œ&ì!/  (ÐÓ  ÓÌÌÓ  ÓÌÐ  Ð+ '2? ÐÑ  ÑÓÓÑ8€##D#XXdÖdÈ8ÑÑ€ÑÓ*°,X°` ¨ ƒX°œX*ÓÑ€eÑà ` àò òSELYA,€òòCircuit€Judgeóó.ó ó€€This€case€requires€us€to€decideÐ ° Ðwhether€the€self„evaluation€and€transition€plan€regulationsÐ xÈ Ðpromulgated€by€the€Attorney€General€under€Title€II€of€the€AmericansÐ $t Ðwith€Disabilities€Act€(ADA),€42€U.S.C.€ðððð€12131„12165,€areÐ Ð  Ðenforceable€through€a€private€right€of€action.€€Two€of€our€sisterÐ | Ì Ðcircuits€have€divided€over€the€appropriate€answer€to€this€thornyÐ ( x  Ðquestion.€€òòCompareóó€òòAbility€Ctr.€of€Greater€Toledoóó€v.€òòCity€ofÐ Ô$  ÐSanduskyóó,€385€F.3d€901,€913„15€(6th€Cir.€2004)€(holding€that€theÐ €Ð  Ðtransition€plan€regulation€is€not€so€enforceable),€òòwithóó€òòChaffinóó€v.Ð ,|  ÐòòKan.€State€Fair€Bd.óó,€348€F.3d€850,€857„60€(10th€Cir.€2003)€(holdingÐ Ø( Ðthat€both€the€self„evaluation€and€transition€plan€regulations€areÐ „Ô Ðenforceable€in€that€manner).€€After€careful€consideration,€weÐ 0€ Ðconclude€that€recent€Supreme€Court€precedent€dashes€any€hope€thatÐ Ü, Ðthese€regulations€are€so€enforceable.€€We€also€conclude€that€theÐ ˆØ Ðplaintiffs'€other€arguments€are€unavailing€and,€accordingly,€affirmÐ 4„ Ðthe€district€court's€grant€of€summary€judgment€in€the€defendant'sÐ à0 Ðfavor.€€Ð ŒÜ  Ðò òI.€€BACKGROUNDÐ 8!ˆ" Ðà ` àó óPlaintiff„appellant€G.€David€Iverson€resides€in€Boston,Ð #P$ ÐMassachusetts.€€He€is€a€paraplegic€who€uses€a€wheelchair€in€orderÐ ¬$ü& Ðto€move€about€the€city.€€Paraplegia€qualifies€as€a€disabilityÐ X&¨!( Ðwithin€the€meaning€of€the€ADA.€€òòSeeóó€42€U.S.C.€ðð€12102(2)(A)Ð (T#* Ð(defining€"disability"€for€ADA€purposes€as€"a€physical€or€mentalÐ °)%, Ðimpairment€that€substantially€limits€one€or€more€.€.€.€major€lifeÐ \+¬&. Ðactivities").€€Plaintiff„appellant€Access€with€Success,€Inc.€(AWS)Ð ° Ðis€a€non„profit€group,€of€which€Iverson€is€a€member,€that€advocatesÐ \¬ Ðequal€access€to€public€programs,€services,€and€facilities€forÐ X Ðdisabled€persons.€Ð ´  Ðà ` àOn€August€20,€2004,€the€plaintiffs€filed€suit€in€theÐ ` ° Ðfederal€district€court€alleging€that€defendant„appellee€City€ofÐ  \  ÐBoston€had€failed€to€provide€disabled€persons€with€equal€access€toÐ ¸  Ðits€programs,€services,€and€facilities.€€The€gravamen€of€theÐ d´  Ðcomplaint€was€that€many€municipal€facilities,€including€streets,Ð `  Ðsidewalks,€and€public€buildings,€lacked€adequate€means€of€ingressÐ ¼  Ðand€egress€for€wheelchair„bound€persons.€€The€complaint€madeÐ h¸ Ðparticular€mention€of€the€condition€of€municipal€sidewalks,Ð d Ðcharging€that€they€"lack€proper€curb€cuts€and/or€curb€ramps"€andÐ À Ð"contain€obstacles€which€block€or€impede€the€accessible€path€ofÐ l¼ Ðtravel."Ð h Ðà ` àò òó óThe€plaintiffs'€complaint€contained€three€statements€ofÐ Ä Ðclaim.€€Count€1€alleged€that€the€self„evaluation€and€transitionÐ pÀ  Ðplan€regulations€promulgated€by€the€Attorney€General€under€Title€IIÐ !l" Ðof€the€ADA,€òòseeóó€28€C.F.R.€ðððð€35.105,€35.150(d),€imposed€anÐ È"$ Ðaffirmative€obligation€on€the€City€both€to€evaluate€its€conformanceÐ t$Ä& Ðwith€the€ADA€and€to€make€structural€changes€to€bring€its€existingÐ  &p!( Ðfacilities€into€compliance;€that€the€City€failed€to€satisfy€theÐ Ì'#* Ðâ âregulatory€mandate€within€the€allotted€time€frame;€and€that€theÐ x)È$, Ðplaintiffs€were€entitled€to€remedy€this€failure€via€a€private€rightÐ ° Ðof€action.Ð \¬ Ðâ âà ` àCount€2€of€the€complaint€incorporated€the€allegationsÐ X Ðcontained€in€count€1€and€charged€that€the€City's€default€of€itsÐ ´  Ðregulatory€obligations€could€be€corrected€through€theÐ ` ° Ðinstrumentality€of€a€private€right€of€action€under€section€504€ofÐ  \  Ðthe€Rehabilitation€Act.€€òòSeeóó€29€U.S.C.€ðð€794(a)€(providing€thatÐ ¸  Ð"[n]o€otherwise€qualified€individual€with€a€disability€.€.€.€shall,Ð d´  Ðsolely€by€reason€of€her€or€his€disability,€be€excluded€from€theÐ `  Ðparticipation€in,€be€denied€the€benefits€of,€or€be€subjected€toÐ ¼  Ðdiscrimination€under€any€program€or€activity€receiving€FederalÐ h¸ Ðfinancial€assistance").€€The€plaintiffs€represent€that€counts€1€andÐ d Ð2€are€intended€to€be€"mirror€images"€of€each€other.€€òòóóSince€theÐ À Ðparties€have€briefed€and€argued€this€appeal€as€though€the€ADA€andÐ l¼ ÐRehabilitation€Act€claims€are€coterminous,€we€construe€counts€1€andÐ h Ð2€as€presenting€a€single€claim.€€òòCf.óó€òòTheriaultóó€v.€òòFlynnóó,€162€F.3dÐ Ä Ð46,€48€n.3€(1st€Cir.€1998)€(noting€that€"Title€II€of€the€ADA€wasÐ pÀ  Ðexpressly€modeled€after€Section€504€of€the€Rehabilitation€Act,€andÐ !l" Ðis€to€be€interpreted€consistently€with€that€provision").€€For€easeÐ È"$ Ðin€reference,€we€discuss€that€claim€in€terms€of€the€ADA.€€Ð t$Ä& Ðà ` àCount€3€of€the€complaint€asserted€a€parallel€state„lawÐ  &p!( Ðcause€of€action€underòòóó€Mass.€Const.€art.€114€and€Mass.€Gen.€Laws€ch.Ð Ì'#* Ð93,€ðð€103.€€ò òó óThe€district€court€dismissed€that€claim€withoutÐ x)È$, Ðprejudice€for€failure€to€exhaust€state€administrative€remedies.€Ð $+t&. ÐInasmuch€as€the€plaintiffs€do€not€fault€that€dismissal,€we€make€noÐ ° Ðfurther€allusion€to€count€3.Ð \¬ Ðà ` àThe€City€moved€to€dismiss.€€òòSeeóó€Fed.€R.€Civ.€P.€12(b).€Ð X ÐAs€to€counts€1€and€2,€the€City€proffered€three€grounds€forÐ ´  Ðdismissal:€(i)€that€the€plaintiffs€failed€to€allege€any€specificÐ ` ° Ðinjury€and,€therefore,€lacked€standing€to€sue;€(ii)€that€the€self„Ð  \  Ðevaluation€and€transition€plan€regulations€were€not€enforceable€byÐ ¸  Ðmeans€of€a€private€right€of€action;€and€(iii)€that€the€claims€wereÐ d´  Ðtime„barred.€€Ð `  Ðà ` àThe€plaintiffs€directed€their€opposition€mainly€to€theÐ ¼  Ðstanding€challenge.€€In€an€attempt€to€establish€that€Iverson€andÐ h¸ Ðother€wheelchair„bound€persons€within€AWS's€constituency€hadÐ d Ðsuffered€concrete€injuries€as€a€result€of€the€City's€regulatoryÐ À Ðnoncompliance,€the€plaintiffs€served€two€affidavits.€€Ð l¼ Ðà ` àIn€the€first€of€these,€Iverson€chronicled€hisÐ h Ðdifficulties€in€operating€his€wheelchair€in€the€area€near€his€homeÐ Ä Ðdue€to€the€substandard€condition€of€municipal€streets€andÐ pÀ  Ðsidewalks,€protested€the€dearth€of€accessible€parking€spots€in€theÐ !l" Ðneighborhoods€he€frequents,€and€complained€of€"numerous€obstaclesÐ È"$ Ðto€access"€at€the€Boston€Public€Library.€€The€second€affidavit,Ð t$Ä& Ðfrom€another€AWS€member,€contained€comparable€statements.€€TheseÐ  &p!( Ðtwo€affidavits,€the€plaintiffs€posited,€defeated€the€claim€thatÐ Ì'#* Ðâ âthey€lacked€standing.€Ð x)È$, Ðà ` àAs€to€the€second€and€third€proffered€grounds€forÐ ° Ðâ âdismissal,€the€plaintiffs'€opposition€reiterated€the€bald„facedÐ \¬ Ðclaim€that€the€self„evaluation€and€transition€plan€regulations€wereÐ X Ðenforceable€by€private€rights€of€action.€€The€opposition€alsoÐ ´  Ðexplained€why,€in€the€plaintiffs'€view,€no€applicable€statute€ofÐ ` ° Ðlimitations€barred€the€suit.€€The€plaintiffs€made€no€mention€of€ð"ðÐ  \  Ðand€no€attempt€to€develop€ð"ð€any€alternate€theory€of€municipalÐ ¸  Ðliability.Ð d´  Ðà ` àWhile€the€plaintiffs€maintained€that€the€complaintÐ `  Ðcontained€sufficient€allegations€to€establish€both€standing€and€aÐ ¼  Ðright€to€relief€under€Title€II,€they€invited€the€district€court,€inÐ h¸ Ðthe€alternative,€either€to€grant€leave€to€amend€the€complaint€toÐ d Ðincorporate€the€factual€averments€contained€in€the€affidavits€or€toÐ À Ðtreat€the€motion€to€dismiss€as€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€(and,Ð l¼ Ðthus,€bring€the€affidavits€into€play).€€The€district€court€acceptedÐ h Ðthe€second€of€these€alternatives€and€converted€the€motion€toÐ Ä Ðdismiss€into€a€motion€for€summary€judgment.€€òòSeeóó€Fed.€R.€Civ.€P.Ð pÀ  Ð12(b);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€Fed.€R.€Civ.€P.€56Ô_Ô(cÔ_Ô).Ð !l" Ðà ` àThe€court€proceeded€to€grant€summary€judgment€in€theÐ È"$ ÐCity's€favor.€€Acknowledging€that€the€plaintiffs€had€encounteredÐ t$Ä& Ð"hindrances"€in€the€use€of€public€facilities€and€assuming€that€theÐ  &p!( Ðâ âCity€had€failed€seasonably€to€comply€with€the€self„evaluation€andÐ Ì'#* ÐÔ_Ôtransition€plan€regulations,׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€the€court€decided€the€case€on€theÐ ° Ðâ âground€that€the€plaintiffs€had€not€demonstrated€any€causalÐ \¬ Ðconnection€between€the€City's€alleged€regulatory€noncompliance€andÐ X Ðthe€plaintiffs'€alleged€injuries.€Ð ´  Ðà ` àThe€plaintiffs€filed€a€timely€motion€for€reconsideration,Ð ` ° Ðòòseeóó€Fed.€R.€Civ.€P.€59(e),€asseverating€that€the€district€court'sÐ  \  Ðjudgment€rested€upon€two€errors€of€law,€namely,€(i)€that€in€findingÐ ¸  Ðan€absence€of€causation,€the€court€applied€an€overly€demandingÐ d´  Ðpleading€standard€and€(ii)€that€the€court€had€disregarded€theÐ `  Ðplaintiffs'€barrier„removal€claim.€€Following€the€summary€denial€ofÐ ¼  Ðthe€motion€for€reconsideration,€this€appeal€ensued.Ð h¸ Ðò òII.€€ANALYSISÐ d Ðà ` àó óOn€appeal,€the€plaintiffs'€principal€position€is€that€theÐ Ü, Ðself„evaluation€and€transition€plan€regulations€are€enforceable€viaÐ ˆØ Ðprivate€rights€of€action€and€that€they€made€out€a€trialworthy€issueÐ 4„ Ðas€to€whether€the€City€had€complied€with€these€regulations.€€TheirÐ à0 Ðfallback€position€is€that€the€case,€at€the€very€least,€should€haveÐ ŒÜ  Ðbeen€allowed€to€proceed€on€their€alternate€barrier„removal€theory.€Ð 8!ˆ" ÐFinally,€the€plaintiffs€assign€error€to€the€denial€of€their€motionÐ ä"4$ Ðfor€reconsideration.€€After€briefly€delineating€the€standard€ofÐ $à& Ðreview,€we€consider€these€points€one€by€one.Ð <&Œ!( ÐÓ  Óà @` àò òA.€€òòThe€Standard€of€Reviewóó.ó óÐ ° ÐÓ™8Óà ` àThe€applicable€standard€of€review€is€familiar:€we€assayÐ xÈ Ða€district€court's€entry€of€summary€judgment€de€novo.€€òòSeeóó€òòDePoutotóóÐ $t Ðv.€òòRaffaellyóó,€424€F.3d€112,€117€(1st€Cir.€2005).€€In€conductingÐ Ð  Ðthis€tamisage,€we€construe€the€evidence€in€the€light€mostÐ | Ì Ðflattering€to€the€nonmovants€(here,€the€plaintiffs)€and€indulge€allÐ ( x  Ðreasonable€inferences€in€their€favor.€€òòGarsideóó€v.€òòOsco€Drug,€Inc.óó,Ð Ô$  Ð895€F.2d€46,€48€(1st€Cir.€1990).€€We€are€not,€however,€tied€to€theÐ €Ð  Ðdistrict€court's€rationale€but€may€affirm€the€judgment€on€anyÐ ,|  Ðground€revealed€by€the€record.€€òòSeeóó€òòHoulton€Citizens'€Coal.óó€v.€òòTownÐ Ø( Ðof€Houltonóó,€175€F.3d€178,€184€(1st€Cir.€1999).Ð „Ô Ðà ` àSummary€judgment€is€appropriate€only€where€the€record,Ð 0€ Ðconstrued€in€the€manner€limned€above,€discloses€"no€genuine€issueÐ Ü, Ðof€material€fact"€and€demonstrates€that€"the€moving€party€isÐ ˆØ Ðentitled€to€a€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law."€€Fed.€R.€Civ.€P.€56(c).€Ð 4„ ÐAn€issue€is€genuine€if€"it€may€reasonably€be€resolved€in€favor€ofÐ à0 Ðeither€party"€at€trial,€òòGarsideóó,€895€F.2d€at€48,€and€material€if€itÐ ŒÜ  Ð"possess[es]€the€capacity€to€sway€the€outcome€of€the€litigationÐ 8!ˆ" Ðunder€the€applicable€law,"€òòCadle€Co.óó€v.€òòHayesóó,€116€F.3d€957,€960Ð ä"4$ Ð(1st€Cir.€1997)€(citation€and€internal€quotation€marks€omitted).€Ð $à& ÐThe€nonmovant€may€defeat€a€summary€judgment€motion€byÐ <&Œ!( Ðdemonstrating,€through€submissions€of€evidentiary€quality,€that€aÐ è'8#* Ðtrialworthy€issue€persists.€€òòCelotex€Corp.óó€v.€òòCatrettóó,€477€U.S.Ð ”)ä$, Ð317,€322„24€(1986);€òòGarsideóó,€895€F.2d€at€48.€€Withal,€a€measure€ofÐ @+&. Ðfactual€specificity€is€required;€"a€conglomeration€of€'conclusoryÐ ° Ðallegations,€improbable€inferences,€and€unsupported€speculation'€isÐ \¬ Ðinsufficient€to€discharge€the€nonmovant's€burden."€€òòDePoutotóó,€424Ð X ÐF.3d€at€117€(quoting€òòMedina„Munozóó€v.€òòR.J.€Reynolds€Tobacco€Co.óó,€896Ð ´  ÐF.2d€5,€8€(1st€Cir.€1990)).€€Ð ` ° ÐÓ  Óà@@ààìàò òB.€€òòThe€Regulatory€Noncompliance€Claimóóó ó.Ð  \  ÐÓ…BÓà ` àCongress€enacted€the€ADA€"to€provide€a€clear€andÐ Ô$  Ðcomprehensive€national€mandate€for€the€elimination€ofÐ €Ð  Ðdiscrimination€against€individuals€with€disabilities."€€42€U.S.C.Ð ,|  Ððð€12101(b)(1).€€Title€I€of€the€ADA€proscribes€disability„relatedÐ Ø( Ðdiscrimination€in€employment€matters.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€ðð€12112.€€Title€IIIÐ „Ô Ðproscribes€disability„related€discrimination€in€the€provision€ofÐ 0€ Ðpublic€accommodations€such€as€hotels,€restaurants,€and€theaters.€Ð Ü, ÐòòSeeóó€òòid.óó€ðððð€12182,€12184.€€This€case€involves€Title€II,€whichÐ ˆØ Ðbroadly€provides€that€"no€qualified€individual€with€a€disabilityÐ 4„ Ðshall,€by€reason€of€such€disability,€be€excluded€from€participationÐ à0 Ðin€or€be€denied€the€benefits€of€the€services,€programs,€orÐ ŒÜ  Ðactivities€of€a€public€entity,€or€be€subjected€to€discrimination€byÐ 8!ˆ" Ðany€such€entity."€€òòId.óó€ðð€12132.€€A€"qualified€individual€with€aÐ ä"4$ Ðdisability"€isÐ $à& ÐÓÓà8 ` àan€individual€with€a€disability€who,€with€orÐ <&Œ!( Ðwithout€reasonable€modifications€to€rules,Ð 'b") Ðpolicies,€or€practices,€the€removal€ofÐ è'8#* Ðarchitectural,€communication,€orÐ ¾($+ Ðtransportation€barriers,€or€the€provision€ofÐ ”)ä$, Ðauxiliary€aids€and€services,€meets€theÐ j*º%- Ðessential€eligibility€requirementsà8@P` x` xà€for€theÐ @+&. Ðreceipt€of€services€or€the€participation€inÐ ,f'/ Ðprograms€or€activities€provided€by€a€publicÐ ° Ðentity.ІÖ` x` x ÐÌÓŒGÓòòId.óó€ðð€12131(2).€€The€term€"public€entity"€includes€"any€State€orÐ 2‚ Ðlocal€government"€as€well€as€"any€department,€agency,€specialÐ Þ. Ðpurpose€district,€or€other€instrumentality€of€a€State€or€States€orÐ Š Ú Ðlocal€government."€€òòId.óó€ðð€12131(1)(A)„(B).€€The€City€does€notÐ 6 †  Ðdispute€that€Iverson€is€a€qualified€individual€with€a€disability€orÐ â 2  Ðthat€it€is€a€public€entity.Ð ŽÞ  Ðà ` àThe€clear€purport€of€Title€II€is€to€guarantee€thatÐ :Š  Ðqualified€disabled€persons€enjoy€meaningful€access€to€publicÐ æ6 Ðservices,€programs,€and€activities.€€òòSeeóó€òòTennesseeóó€v.€òòLaneóó,€541Ð ’â ÐU.S.€509,€531„32€(2004).€€To€this€end,€the€ADA€authorizes€theÐ >Ž ÐAttorney€General€to€promulgate€regulations€implementing€itsÐ ê: Ðprovisions.€€òòSeeóó€42€U.S.C.€ðð€12134(a).€€Ð –æ Ðà ` àPromulgated€under€this€authority,€the€self„evaluationÐ B’ Ðregulation€directed€all€public€entities,€by€April€5,€1994,€toÐ î> Ð"evaluate€[their]€current€services,€policies,€and€practices,€andÐ šê Ðthe€effects€thereof"€for€compliance€with€Title€II.€€28€C.F.R.€ððÐ F –! Ð35.105(a).€€If€this€self„evaluation€indicates€the€need€forÐ ò!B# Ðmodification€of€a€public€service,€policy,€or€practice€in€order€toÐ ž#î% Ðachieve€Title€II€compliance,€the€public€entity€is€directed€to€makeÐ J%š ' Ðthe€modification.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.Ð ö&F") Ðà ` àóóA€second€regulation€addresses€a€public€entity'sÐ ¢(ò#+ Ðresponsibilities€vis„„vis€"existing€facilities,"€a€phrase€thatÐ N*ž%- Ðincludes€"all€or€any€portion€of€[its]€buildings,€structures,€sites,Ð ú+J'/ Ðcomplexes,€.€.€.€roads,€walks,€[and]€passageways"€that€were€inÐ ° Ðexistence€at€the€time€of€the€ADA's€enactment.€€òòId.óó€ðð€35.104.€Ð \¬ ÐConsistent€with€Title€II's€emphasis€on€"program€accessibility,"€theÐ X Ðregulatory€scheme€generally€does€not€require€public€entities€toÐ ´  Ðretrofit€their€existing€facilities.€€òòSeeóó€òòLaneóó,€541€U.S.€at€532;€òòseeóóÐ ` ° Ðòòalsoóó€28€C.F.R.€ðð€35.150(a)(1).€€Rather,€the€regulations€permit€aÐ  \  Ðpublic€entity€to€select€among€a€number€of€alternatives€forÐ ¸  Ðaccomplishing€program€accessibility,€including€the€relocation€ofÐ d´  Ðservices,€the€reassignment€of€personnel,€and€the€structuralÐ `  Ðmodification€of€existing€facilities.€€òòSeeóó€28€C.F.R.€ðð€35.150(b)(1).€Ð ¼  ÐIn€all€events,€public€entities€are€excused€from€undertaking€anyÐ h¸ Ðcompliance€measures€that€"impose€an€undue€financial€orÐ d Ðadministrative€burden,€threaten€historic€preservation€interests,€orÐ À Ðeffect€a€fundamental€alteration€in€the€nature€of€the€service."€Ð l¼ ÐòòLaneóó,€541€U.S.€at€532€(citing€28€C.F.R.€ðð€35.150(a)(2)„(3)).׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€à€(#(#K(#àˆÐ h Ðà ` àIf€structural€changes€to€existing€facilities€are€to€beÐ Ä Ðundertaken€to€accomplish€program€accessibility,€the€transition€planÐ pÀ  Ðregulation€directs€a€qualifying€public€entity€to€"develop,€withinÐ !l" Ðsix€months€of€January€26,€1992,€a€transition€plan€setting€forth€theÐ ° Ðsteps€necessary€to€complete€such€changes."€€28€C.F.R.€ððÐ \¬ Ð35.150(d)(1).€€Public€entities€with€responsibility€over€streets,Ð X Ðroads,€or€walkways€bear€an€additional€burden;€the€regulationÐ ´  Ðrequires€those€entities€to€craft,€in€their€transition€plan,€"aÐ ` ° Ðschedule€for€providing€curb€ramps€or€other€sloped€areas€whereÐ  \  Ðpedestrian€walks€cross€curbs,€giving€priority€to€walkways€servingÐ ¸  Ð.€.€.€State€and€local€government€offices€and€facilities,Ð d´  Ðtransportation,€places€of€public€accommodation,€and€employers."€Ð `  ÐòòId.óó€ðð€35.150(d)(2).€€And,€finally,€the€transition€plan€regulationÐ ¼  Ðmandates€that€any€structural€changes€to€existing€facilities€"beÐ h¸ Ðmade€within€three€years€of€January€26,€1992,€but€in€any€event€asÐ d Ðexpeditiously€as€possible."€€òòId.óó€ðð€35.150(c).Ð À Ðà ` àIt€is€beyond€peradventure€that,€in€certain€aspects,€TitleÐ l¼ ÐII€creates€a€private€right€of€action€against€noncompliant€publicÐ h Ðentities.€€òòSeeóó€42€U.S.C.€ðð€12133;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòLaneóó,€541€U.S.€at€517.€Ð Ä ÐHere,€however€ð"ð€with€the€exception€of€their€fallback€argument,€toÐ pÀ  Ðwhich€we€shortly€shall€return€ð"ð€the€plaintiffs€do€not€claim€aÐ !l" Ðdirect€violation€of€Title€II;€instead,€they€claim€violations€of,Ð È"$ Ðand€concomitant€rights€to€enforce,€the€self„evaluation€andÐ t$Ä& Ðtransition€plan€regulations.€€As€we€explain€below,€this€is€anÐ  &p!( Ðimportant€distinction.€€Ð Ì'#* Ðà ` àAn€implementing€regulation€may€under€certainÐ x)È$, Ðcircumstances€be€enforced€through€the€private€right€of€actionÐ $+t&. Ðavailable€under€the€organic€statute€that€it€implements.€€òòSeeóóÐ ° ÐòòAlexanderóó€v.€òòSandovalóó,€532€U.S.€275,€284„85€(2001).€€UnderÐ \¬ ÐòòSandovalóó,€however,€a€private€plaintiff€may€not,€merely€byÐ X Ðreferencing€the€organic€statute,€enforce€regulations€that€interdictÐ ´  Ða€broader€swath€of€conduct€than€the€statute€itself€prohibits.€Ð ` ° ÐòòóóAfter€all,€the€power€to€create€a€private€right€of€action,€like€theÐ  \  Ðpower€to€create€positive€federal€law€itself,€lies€exclusively€withÐ ¸  ÐCongress.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€at€286;€òòBonanoóó€v.€òòE.€Carib.€Airline€Corp.óó,€365Ð d´  ÐF.3d€81,€84€(1st€Cir.€2004).€€Accordingly,€a€private€right€ofÐ `  Ðaction€may€be€conceived€only€by€a€statute€that€clearly€evincesÐ ¼  Ðcongressional€intent€to€bestow€such€a€right.€€òòSeeóó€òòSandovalóó,€532Ð h¸ ÐU.S.€at€286„87.Ð d Ðà ` àòòSandovalóó€itself€aptly€illustrates€this€point.€€Citing€theÐ À Ðtenet€described€above,€the€òòSandovalóó€Court€held€that€an€implementingÐ l¼ Ðregulation,€on€its€own,€cannot€create€a€private€right€of€action.€Ð h ÐòòSeeóó€òòid.óó€at€291;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòBonanoóó,€365€F.3d€at€84.Ð Ä Ðà ` àTo€be€sure,€this€holding€òòóódoes€not€foreclose€all€privateÐ pÀ  Ðregulatory€enforcement.€€Although€a€regulation€"may€not€create€aÐ !l" Ðright€that€Congress€has€not,"€it€"may€invoke€a€private€right€ofÐ È"$ Ðaction€that€Congress€through€statutory€text€created."€€òòSandovalóó,Ð t$Ä& Ð532€U.S.€at€291.€€Thus,€while€it€is€vecordious€to€speak€in€terms€ofÐ  &p!( Ða€cause€of€action€to€enforce€an€implementing€regulation€separateÐ Ì'#* Ðand€apart€from€its€organic€statute,€a€regulation€that€simplyÐ x)È$, Ðeffectuates€an€express€mandate€contained€in€the€organic€statute€mayÐ $+t&. Ðnonetheless€be€enforceable€through€the€private€right€of€actionÐ ° Ðavailable€under€the€statute€itself.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€at€284.€€In€contrast,Ð \¬ Ða€regulation€that€announces€an€obligation€or€a€prohibition€notÐ X Ðimposed€by€the€organic€statute€may€not€be€enforced€under€the€aegisÐ ´  Ðof€a€statutory€right€of€action.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€at€284„85.€€So€viewed,€theÐ ` ° Ðdispositive€question€is€whether€the€regulation€either€forbidsÐ  \  Ðconduct€that€the€statute€allows€or€imposes€an€obligation€beyondÐ ¸  Ðwhat€the€statute€mandates.€€If€that€question€produces€anÐ d´  Ðaffirmative€answer,€the€regulation€is€not€privately€enforceable.€Ð `  ÐòòSeeóó€òòid.Ð ¼  Ðà ` àóóApplying€these€principles,€the€Sixth€Circuit€has€heldÐ h¸ Ðthat€the€transition€plan€regulation€is€not€enforceable€through€theÐ d Ðinstrumentality€of€Title€II's€private€right€of€action.€€òòSeeóó€òòAbilityÐ À ÐCtr.óó,€385€F.3d€at€913„15.€€Although€the€development€of€a€transitionÐ l¼ Ðplan€"may€ultimately€facilitate€compliance€with€Title€II,"€theÐ h Ðcourt€explained,€"there€is€no€indication€that€a€public€entity'sÐ Ä Ðfailure€to€develop€a€transition€plan€[seriously]€harms€disabledÐ pÀ  Ðindividuals"€or€that€a€public€entity€cannot€make€its€services,Ð !l" Ðprograms,€or€activities€accessible€to€qualified€disabled€personsÐ È"$ Ðwithout€first€developing€a€transition€plan.€€òòId.óó€at€914.€€In€short,Ð t$Ä& Ðthe€transition€plan€regulation€imposes€an€obligation€beyond€theÐ  &p!( Ðstatutory€mandate€and,€therefore,€is€not€privately€enforceable.€Ð Ì'#* Ðâ âòòId.Ð x)È$, Ðà ` àóóWe€embrace€this€reasoning.€€We€add,€moreover,€that€itÐ ° Ðâ âalso€dooms€the€plaintiffs'€attempt€to€enforce€the€self„evaluationÐ \¬ Ðregulation€through€a€private€suit.€€Nothing€in€the€text€of€Title€IIÐ X Ðrequires€public€entities€to€conduct€self„evaluations,€let€alone€toÐ ´  Ðdo€so€by€the€date€prescribed€in€the€regulation.€€Conducting€a€self„Ð ` ° Ðevaluation€may€well€facilitate€compliance€with€the€strictures€ofÐ  \  ÐTitle€II€ð"ð€but€a€municipality's€failure€to€self„evaluate€does€notÐ ¸  Ðin€and€of€itself€render€municipal€services,€programs,€or€activitiesÐ d´  Ðinaccessible€to€disabled€persons.€€Put€another€way,€it€isÐ `  Ðaltogether€conceivable€that€a€public€entity€may€be€in€fullÐ ¼  Ðcompliance€with€Title€II€without€observing€the€commands€of€theÐ h¸ Ðself„evaluation€regulation.€€Given€this€state€of€affairs,€we€holdÐ d Ðthat€the€self„evaluation€regulation€imposes€a€burden€on€publicÐ À Ðentities€not€imposed€by€Title€II€itself€and,€therefore,€is€notÐ l¼ Ðenforceable€through€the€instrumentality€of€Title€II's€private€rightÐ h Ðof€action.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€Ð Ä Їà ` àIn€an€effort€to€blunt€the€force€of€this€reasoning,€theÐ ° Ðplaintiffs€note€that€the€Tenth€Circuit€has€held€that€the€self„Ð \¬ Ðevaluation€and€transition€plan€regulations,€along€with€severalÐ X Ðother€regulations€promulgated€under€Title€II,€are€enforceableÐ ´  Ðthrough€a€private€suit.€€òòSeeóó€òòChaffinóó,€348€F.3d€at€856„60.€€In€ourÐ ` ° Ðview,€the€òòChaffinóó€court€misconstrued€òòSandovalóó€and,€thus,€theÐ  \  Ðdecision€is€simply€incorrect.€€Although€the€òòóócourt€appropriatelyÐ ¸  Ðrecognized€that€"regulations€may€not€create€a€private€cause€ofÐ d´  Ðaction€where€no€such€right€was€intended€by€Congress€in€the€statuteÐ `  Ðauthorizing€promulgation€of€such€regulations,"€òòid.óó€at€857,€itÐ ¼  Ðinexplicably€disregarded€òòSandovalóó's€òòóócorollary€rule€that€regulationsÐ h¸ Ðwhich€impose€an€obligation€beyond€the€statutory€mandate€are€notÐ d Ðenforceable€through€the€statutory€right€of€action,€òòseeóó€òòid.óó€at€857„Ð À Ð58.€€In€light€of€this€error,€we€elect€to€align€ourselves€with€theÐ l¼ ÐSixth€Circuit,€òòseeóó€òòAbility€Ctr.óó,€385€F.3d€at€913„15,€and€to€rejectÐ h Ðthe€position€of€the€Tenth€Circuit,€òòseeóó€òòChaffinóó,€348€F.3d€at€856„60.€Ð Ä Ðà ` àTo€recapitulate,€the€self„evaluation€and€transition€planÐ pÀ  Ðregulations€impose€obligations€on€public€entities€different€than,Ð !l" Ðand€beyond,€those€imposed€by€the€ADA€itself.€€Consequently,€thoseÐ È"$ Ðregulations€may€not€be€enforced€through€the€instrumentality€of€theÐ t$Ä& Ðprivate€right€of€action€available€under€Title€II.€€On€this€basis€ð"ðÐ  &p!( Ðâ âand€without€reaching€the€causation€issue€that€the€district€courtÐ Ì'#* Ðfound€dispositive€ð"ð€we€uphold€the€entry€of€summary€judgment€for€theÐ ° ÐCity€on€the€plaintiffs'€regulatory€noncompliance€claim.Ð \¬ Ðâ âÓ  Óà @` àà @¨ àà @ àà @X àò òC.€€òòThe€Barrier„Removal€Claimóó.ó óÐ X ÐÓ`}Óà ` àThe€plaintiffs'€fallback€position€is€that€even€if€theyÐ Ð  Ðhave€no€private€right€of€action€to€enforce€the€self„evaluation€andÐ | Ì Ðtransition€plan€regulations,€the€district€court€nonetheless€erredÐ ( x  Ðin€neglecting€to€address€an€alternate€theory€of€liability:€that€theÐ Ô$  ÐCity's€failure€to€remove€barriers€to€access€at€existing€facilitiesÐ €Ð  Ðconstitutes€disability„based€discrimination.€€This€plaint€cannotÐ ,|  Ðwithstand€scrutiny.Ð Ø( Ðà ` àWe€have€held,€with€echolalic€regularity,€that€theoriesÐ „Ô Ðnot€squarely€and€timely€raised€in€the€trial€court€cannot€be€pursuedÐ 0€ Ðfor€the€first€time€on€appeal.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòBoston€Beer€Co.€Ltd.Ð Ü, ÐP'shipóó€v.€òòSlesar€Bros.€Brewing€Co.óó,€9€F.3d€175,€180€(1st€Cir.Ð ˆØ Ð1993);€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòSladeóó,€980€F.2d€27,€31€(1st€Cir.€1992);Ð 4„ ÐòòTeamsters€Union,€Local€No.€59óó€v.€òòSuperline€Transp.€Co.óó,€953€F.2dÐ à0 Ð17,€21€(1st€Cir.€1992);€òòMcCoyóó€v.€òòMass.€Inst.€of€Tech.óó,€950€F.2d€13,Ð ŒÜ  Ð22€(1st€Cir.€1991);€òòClausonóó€v.€òòSmithóó,€823€F.2d€660,€666€(1st€Cir.Ð 8!ˆ" Ð1987).€€This€prophylactic€rule€requires€litigants€to€spell€outÐ ä"4$ Ðtheir€legal€theories€face„up€and€squarely€in€the€trial€court;€if€aÐ $à& Ðclaim€is€"merely€insinuated"€rather€than€"actually€articulated,"Ð <&Œ!( Ðthat€claim€ordinarily€is€deemed€unpreserved€for€purposes€ofÐ è'8#* Ðâ âappellate€review.€€òòMcCoyóó,€950€F.2d€at€22€(citation€omitted).Ð ”)ä$, Ðà ` àSo€it€is€here.€€While€the€plaintiffs'€complaint€at€oneÐ ° Ðâ âpoint€decried€the€condition€of€city€streets€and€sidewalks,€itÐ \¬ Ðcontained€few€facts€ð"ð€and€even€fewer€allegations€ð"ð€that€so€much€asÐ X Ðhinted€at€a€barrier„removal€claim.€€District€judges€are€notÐ ´  Ðexpected€to€be€clairvoyants€ð"ð€and€this€was€too€inscrutable€aÐ ` ° Ðreference€to€state€a€barrier„removal€claim.€€Ð  \  Ðà ` àLet€us€be€perfectly€clear.€€A€pleading€states€a€claimÐ ¸  Ðupon€which€relief€can€be€granted€only€when€it€contains€"factualÐ d´  Ðallegations,€either€direct€or€inferential,€respecting€each€materialÐ `  Ðelement€necessary€to€sustain€recovery€under€some€actionable€legalÐ ¼  Ðtheory."€€òòBerneróó€v.€òòDelahantyóó,€129€F.3d€20,€25€(1st€Cir.€1997)Ð h¸ Ð(quoting€òòGooleyóó€v.€òòMobil€Oil€Corp.óó,€851€F.2d€513,€515€(1st€Cir.Ð d Ð1988));€òòseeóó€òòEducadores€Puertorriqueos€En€Accið;ðnóó€v.€òòHernndezóó,€367Ð À ÐF.3d€61,€67„68€(1st€Cir.€2004)€(emphasizing€that€the€noticeÐ l¼ Ðpleading€requirements€of€Fed.€R.€Civ.€P.€8(a)(2)€incorporate€thisÐ h Ðprinciple).€€òòóóAt€a€minimum,€then,€the€plaintiffs€were€required€toÐ Ä Ðplead€(i)€that€Iverson€(or€some€other€member€of€AWS)€is€a€qualifiedÐ pÀ  Ðindividual€with€a€disability;€(ii)€that€such€an€individual€wasÐ !l" Ðeither€excluded€from€participation€in€or€denied€the€benefit€of€someÐ È"$ Ðpublic€services,€programs,€or€activities;€and€(iii)€that€suchÐ t$Ä& Ðexclusion,€denial€of€benefits,€or€other€discrimination€was€byÐ  &p!( Ðreason€of€the€individual's€disability.€€òòSeeóó€òòParkeróó€v.€òòUniversidadÐ Ì'#* Ðde€Puerto€Ricoóó,€225€F.3d€1,€5€(1st€Cir.€2000).€€The€plaintiffs'Ð x)È$, Ðcomplaint€offered€no€meaningful€explanation€as€to€how€ð"ð€if€at€allÐ $+t&. Ðð"ð€the€conditions€of€municipal€streets€and€sidewalks€deprivedÐ ° ÐIverson€(or€anyone€else)€of€access€to€òòanyóó€public€service,€program,Ð \¬ Ðor€activity.€€For€that€reason€alone,€the€plaintiffs'€barrier„Ð X Ðremoval€claim€fails€as€a€matter€of€pleading.€€Ð ´  Ðà ` àTo€cinch€matters,€the€plaintiffs€made€no€mention€of€aÐ ` ° Ðbarrier„removal€claim€in€their€opposition€to€the€City's€dispositiveÐ  \  Ðmotion.€€As€we€wrote€in€a€comparable€case,€"[c]ourts€are€entitledÐ ¸  Ðto€expect€represented€parties€to€incorporate€all€relevant€argumentsÐ d´  Ðin€the€papers€that€directly€address€a€pending€motion."€€òòMcCoyóó,€950Ð `  ÐF.2d€at€22€n.7.€€This€branch€of€the€raise„or„waive€rule€serves€theÐ ¼  Ðsalutary€purpose€of€preventing€litigants€from€gaming€the€system€byÐ h¸ Ðseeding€complaints€with€Delphic€references€in€the€hope€ofÐ d Ðfacilitating€an€escape€should€the€district€court's€ruling€on€theirÐ À Ðadvertised€claims€fail€to€suit.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€at€22.€€Applying€thatÐ l¼ Ðprinciple,€we€conclude€that€the€plaintiffs'€failure€to€mention€ð"ðÐ h Ðlet€alone€adequately€to€develop€ð"ð€the€barrier„removal€theory€inÐ Ä Ðtheir€opposition€to€the€City's€dispositive€motion€defeats€theirÐ pÀ  Ðâ âbelated€attempt€to€advance€the€theory€on€appeal.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð !l" Ðà ` àOf€course,€appellate€courts€retain€a€modicum€ofÐ ° Ðâ âdiscretion€to€relax€the€raise„or„waive€rule€in€order€to€preventÐ \¬ Ðmiscarriages€of€justice.€€òòSeeóó€òòSladeóó,€980€F.2d€at€31.€€But€thisÐ X Ðauthority€is€to€be€used€sparingly€and€only€in€exceptional€cases€ð"ðÐ ´  Ðcases€in€which€"the€previously€omitted€ground€is€'so€compelling€asÐ ` ° Ðvirtually€to€insure€appellant's€success.'"€€òòId.óó€(quoting€òòHernandez„Ð  \  ÐHernandezóó€v.€òòUnited€Statesóó,€904€F.2d€758,€763€(1st€Cir.€1990)).€Ð ¸  ÐThe€case€at€hand€does€not€come€close€to€satisfying€this€rigorousÐ d´  Ðcriterion.€€Ð `  Ðà ` àNeither€the€self„evaluation€and€transition€planÐ ¼  Ðregulations€nor€Title€II€itself€imposes€a€duty€on€a€public€entityÐ h¸ Ðto€make€structural€changes€to€existing€facilities.€€This€factÐ d Ðlargely€explains€the€plaintiffs'€inability€to€articulate€how€theÐ À ÐCity's€alleged€failure€to€comply€with€the€regulations€caused€theÐ l¼ Ðinjuries€of€which€they€complain;€after€all,€the€City,€once€itÐ h Ðconducts€a€self„evaluation€ð"ð€and€it€may€already€have€done€so,€òòseeóóÐ Ä Ðòòsupraóó€note€1€ð"ð€may€elect€to€achieve€Title€II€compliance€throughÐ pÀ  Ðmethods€other€than€the€modification€of€existing€facilities.€€òòSeeóó€28Ð !l" ÐC.F.R.€ðððð€35.150(a)(1),€(b)(1).€€Moreover,€the€plaintiffs€haveÐ È"$ Ðpointed€to€nothing€in€the€record€to€buttress€their€conclusoryÐ t$Ä& Ðcontention€that€the€City's€ostensible€failure€to€remove€structuralÐ  &p!( Ðbarriers€emanated€from€some€disability„based€animus.€€òòSeeóó€òòAbilityÐ Ì'#* ÐCtr.óó,€385€F.3d€at€910€("[A]€plaintiff€can€prevail€under€[Title€II]Ð x)È$, Ðeither€by€showing€'discrimination'€or€by€showing€'denial€of€theÐ $+t&. Ðbenefits'€of€public€services."€(quoting€òòHenrietta€D.óó€v.€òòBloombergóó,Ð ° Ð331€F.3d€261,€276€(2d€Cir.€2003));€òòcf.óó€òòForestier€Fraderaóó€v.Ð \¬ ÐòòMunicipality€of€Mayagezóó,€440€F.3d€17,€22„23€(1st€Cir.€2006)Ð X Ð(holding€that€a€showing€of€delay€in€a€municipality's€accommodationÐ ´  Ðof€a€plaintiff's€disability,€without€more,€was€insufficient€toÐ ` ° Ðestablish€the€disability„based€animus€required€for€actionableÐ  \  Ðdiscrimination€under€Title€II).€€In€light€of€these€considerations,Ð ¸  Ðthere€is€no€reason€here€to€deviate€from€the€raise„or„waive€rule.Ð d´  Ðò òà@¸ ¸ ìàD.€€òòThe€Motion€for€Reconsiderationóó.ó óˆÐ `  Ðà ` àThe€plaintiffs'€objection€to€the€lower€court's€denial€ofÐ Ø( Ðtheir€motion€for€reconsideration€need€not€detain€us.€€As€said,€òòseeóóÐ „Ô Ðòòsupraóó€Part€II(C),€the€plaintiffs€failed€properly€to€develop€theÐ 0€ Ðbarrier„removal€theory€in€either€their€complaint€or€theirÐ Ü, Ðopposition€to€the€City's€dispositive€motion.€€òòóóIt€follows,€aÐ ˆØ Ðfortiori,€that€there€was€no€abuse€of€discretion€in€the€districtÐ 4„ Ðcourt's€refusal€to€address€that€theory€on€a€motion€forÐ à0 Ðreconsideration.€€òòSeeóó€òòAybaróó€v.€òòCrispin„Reyesóó,€118€F.3d€10,€16€(1stÐ ŒÜ  ÐCir.€1997)€(explaining€that€Rule€59(e)€"does€not€provide€a€vehicleÐ 8!ˆ" Ðfor€a€party€to€undo€its€own€procedural€failures€[or]€allow€a€partyÐ ä"4$ Ð[to]€advance€arguments€that€could€and€should€have€been€presented€toÐ $à& Ðthe€district€court€prior€to€judgment"€(citation€and€quotation€marksÐ <&Œ!( Ðomitted));€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòTellóó€v.€òòTrs.€of€Darmouth€Coll.óó,€145€F.3d€417,Ð è'8#* Ð420€(1st€Cir.€1998).€€The€presentation€of€a€previously€unpled€andÐ ”)ä$, Ðundeveloped€argument€in€a€motion€for€reconsideration€neither€Ô_ÔcuresÐ @+&. ÐÑeÑâ âÑϰÑâ âÑ  Ñthe€original€omission€nor€preserves€the€argument€as€a€matter€ofÐ ° Ðright€for€appellate€review.€€òòSeeóó€òòTellóó,€145€F.3d€at€420.€òòóó€€€òòó󀀀Р\¬ Ðà ` àIn€all€events,€the€motion€for€reconsideration€containedÐ X Ðscant€elaboration€of€the€barrier„removal€theory€and€offered€noÐ ´  Ðanalysis€of€how€the€statute,€regulations,€or€relevant€case€lawÐ ` ° Ðsupported€such€a€theory€on€the€facts€of€this€case.€€That,€inÐ  \  Ðitself,€was€a€fatal€flaw.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòSeeóó€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòÔ_ÔZanninoÔ_Ôóó,€895€F.2dÐ ¸  Ð1,€17€(1st€Cir.€1990)€(stating€that€"issues€adverted€to€in€aÐ d´  Ðperfunctory€manner,€unaccompanied€by€some€effort€at€developedÐ `  Ðargumentation,€are€deemed€waived").€Ð ¼  Ðò òIII.€€CONCLUSIONÐ h¸ Ðà ` àó óWe€need€go€no€further.€€The€self„evaluation€andÐ 0€ Ðtransition€plan€regulations€impose€obligations€different€than,€andÐ Ü, Ðbeyond,€those€imposed€by€Title€II€of€the€ADA.€€Accordingly,€theyÐ ˆØ Ðare€not€enforceable€through€the€instrumentality€of€the€privateÐ 4„ Ðright€of€action€available€under€that€statute.€€That€ends€theÐ à0 Ðmatter:€as€explicated€above,€the€plaintiffs€neither€pleaded€norÐ ŒÜ  Ðpreserved€(and,€thus,€waived)€their€claim€that€the€City's€failureÐ 8!ˆ" Ðto€remove€structural€barriers€at€its€existing€facilitiesÐ ä"4$ Ðconstituted€disability„based€discrimination.€€For€these€reasons,€weÐ $à& Ðaffirm€the€judgment€below.ò òÐ <&Œ!( ÐòòAffirmedóó.ó ó