law.” Frazier v. Fairhaven Sch. Comm., 276 F.3d 52, 57 (1st Cir.2002) (internal quotations omitted). “This provision creates a cause of action for federal statutory as well as constitutional rights.... ” Bryson v. Shumway, 308 F.3d 79, 88 (1st Cir.2002) (citing Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 U.S. 1, 4-8, 100 S.Ct. 2502, 65 L.Ed.2d 555 (1980)). To determine whether recovery under a specific federal statute is available through § 1983, the court must decide “(i) whether Congress ha[s] foreclosed private enforcement of that statute in the enactment itself, and (ii) whether the statute at issue [is] the kind that created enforceable rights under § 1983.” Middlesex Cnty. Sewerage Auth. v. Nat’l Sea Clammers Ass’n, 453 U.S. 1, 19, 101 S.Ct. 2615, 69 L.Ed.2d 435 (1981) (internal quotations omitted) (<HOLDING>). “When the remedial devices provided in a
holding that in view of elaborate enforcement mechanisms it could not be assumed congress intended additional judicial remedies for citizens suing under environmental protection statutes holding that the csra in failing to provide explicitly for administrative or judicial remedies for certain decisions affecting nonpreference excepted service employees implicitly bars judicial remedies under 5 usc  5596 back pay act holding that the statutes could be harmonized holding that state court judgment affirming an administrative decision did not bar a subsequent federal action for additional relief because of national policy that title vii remedies be available to supplement state remedies for employment discrimination holding that federal law applies because judicial estoppel relates to protection of the integrity of the federal judicial process