Court Opinion

ID: 2963591
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:12:31.572152+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:00:30.619410
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 94-2250

                                  ANTHONY SOLIMINE,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                          UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                     [Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                           Selya and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________

                                 ____________________

            Anthony Solimine on brief pro se.
            ________________
            Donald K.  Stern,  United States  Attorney, and  David S.  Mackey,
            ________________                                 ________________
        Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellees.

                                 ____________________

                                   August 29, 1995
                                 ____________________

                 Per  Curiam.  The  underlying district court  action and
                 ___________

            this appeal are  essentially identical  to appellant's  other

            district court complaints and previous appeals in Solimine v.
                                                              ________

            F.B.I., Nos. 94-1873;  94-1995 (1st Cir. Mar. 24,  1995).  As
            ______

            we noted therein, the underlying action is frivolous as it is

            based on "an  indisputably meritless legal theory."   Neitzke
                                                                  _______

            v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989).
               ________

                 Appellant's motion for oral argument is denied.
                                                         _______

                 We  summarily affirm  for  the  reasons  stated  in  the
                               ______

            district court's  memorandum  and order  of  dismissal  dated

            September 21, 1994.  Loc. R. 27.1.

                                         -2-