Court Opinion

ID: 197650
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2011-02-07 03:34:51+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:43:33.391342
License: Public Domain

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                    FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                        

No. 97-1464

                     DENNIS J. SOLOMON,

                    Plaintiff, Appellant,

                             v.

                  KIMBERLY CHENEY, ET AL.,

                   Defendants, Appellees.

                                        

        APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

         [Hon. Patti B. Saris, U.S. District Judge]

                                        

                           Before

                   Selya, Boudin and Lynch,
                       Circuit Judges.

                                        

Dennis J. Solomon on brief pro se.
Carol 
                 A. 
                   Griffin, 
                            W
                             illiam T. Bogaert and Morrison, Mahoney &amp; Miller
on  Memorandum of  Law  in Support  of  Motion of  Defendant-Appellee,
Kimberly Cheney, for Summary Affirmance.

                                        

                      November 14, 1997
                                        

     Per Curiam.   Pro se plaintiff Dennis Solomon appeals  a

district  court judgment  that  dismissed  his  complaint  as

frivolous 
                     under 28 U.S.C. S 1915(e)(2)(B).  Plaintiff is not a

prisoner.  He did not seek to proceed in forma pauperis,  but

rather 
                  paid 
                       the 
                          full 
                               fee 
                                   for filing his complaint.  Thus, it is

not 
               entirely 
                        clear that the foregoing statute, which generally

applies to  prisoners seeking to  proceed in forma  pauperis,

applies 
                   to 
                      this 
                          case. 
                                 
                                 Nevertheless, having thoroughly reviewed

the 
               record 
                      and 
                         the 
                             parties' briefs on appeal, this court agrees

that the instant  action is frivolous and that plaintiff  can

prove 
                 no 
                    set 
                       of 
                          facts 
                                that would entitle him to relief.  Nor do

we see any merit to the plaintiff's unsupported claim of bias

on the part of the district court.  Accordingly, the judgment

of the district court is summarily affirmed.  See Local  Rule

27.1.

                             -2-