Court Opinion

ID: 2965945
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:46:42.45232+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:00:50.377556
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

       [NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
                 United States Court of Appeals
                     For the First Circuit

No. 98-2233

   ADALBERTO LOZADA-DIAZ; ARLENE SANABRIA-SOTO; KARLA MICHELLE
        LOZADA-SANABRIA; FELIPE MANUEL LOZADA-SANABRIA; 
                 LUIS ALBERTO LOZADA-SANABRIA, 
                                
                    Plaintiffs, Appellants,
                                
                               v.
                                
         UNITED STATES & UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICES,
                                
                     Defendants, Appellees.
                    _______________________
                                
  ABC INSURANCE CO.; JOHN DOE; RICHARD ROE; DEF INSURANCE CO.,
                                
                          Defendants.
                                
                                
                                
          APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                                
                FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
                                
       [Hon. Juan M. Perez-Gimenez, U.S. District Judge]
                                
                                
                                
                             Before
                     Torruella, Chief Judge,
               Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges.
                                
                                
                                
     Paul M. Vilaro-Nelms and Vilaro Law Offices on brief for
appellants.
     Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Miguel A. Fernandez,
Chief, Civil Division, and Isabel Munoz-Acota, Assistant United
States Attorney, on brief for appellees.

August 6, 1999

            Per Curiam.  Upon careful review of the briefs and
  record, we conclude that plaintiffs' action properly was
  dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P 12(b)(6) for failure to state a
  claim upon which relief could be granted.  We reach this
  conclusion essentially for the reasons stated by the district
  court in the Opinion and Order dated August 4, 1998, adding
  only one comment.  
            The district court was not required on its own motion
  to volunteer an additional opportunity to amend the complaint
  before dismissing the action, and we decline to require that
  the district court allow an amendment now.  See Royal Business
  Group, Inc. v. Realist, Inc., 933 F.2d 1056, 1066 (1st Cir.
  1991).
            Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.