of which is an agreement between the parties to inflict a wrong against or injury upon another, and an overt act that results in damages.” Earle v. Benoit, 850 F.2d 836, 844 (1st Cir.1988)(quoting Hampton v. Hanrahan, 600 F.2d 600, 620-21 (7th Cir.1979)) (internal quotations omitted). While plaintiffs are correct that “conspiracy is a matter of inference,” summary judgment may still be appropriate on a conspiracy claim where the nonmoving party rests merely on conclusory allegations. Here plaintiffs have presented no evidence, either direct or circumstantial of an agreement among defendants from which a reasonable jury could have inferred a conspiracy among them to inflict harm upon the plaintiffs. Earle, 850 F.2d at 845; see also Slotnick v. Staviskey, 560 F.2d 31, 33 (1st Cir.1977)(<HOLDING>). Summary judgment was thus proper on this
holding that complaint alleging a conspiracy to deprive plaintiff of his civil rights cannot survive motion to dismiss based on conclusory allegations of conspiracy which are not supported by references to material facts holding that a civil rights claim of conspiracy must include allegations of specific operative facts holding plaintiffs must provide particularized allegations as to why demand would be futile to survive a motion to dismiss conclusory allegations are not enough holding that a person alleging a conspiracy to violate constitutional rights must do more than simply aver that a conspiracy existed holding that plaintiffs allegations of abuse did not amount to the allegations of torture required by  1605a7 to survive a motion to dismiss