Court Opinion

ID: 2965725
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:44:09.043098+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:21:13.500731
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION--NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]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

No. 98-2066

                    WILLIAM L. TAYLOR, ET AL.,

                     Plaintiffs, Appellants,

                                v.

                  STATE OF RHODE ISLAND, ET AL.,

                      Defendants, Appellees.

           APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                 FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

             [Hon. Mary M. Lisi, U.S. District Judge]

                              Before

                     Torruella, Chief Judge,
                   Cyr, Senior Circuit Judge,
                   and Selya, Circuit Judge.
                                
                                

     Richard A. Sinapi, American Civil Liberties Union, Rhode
Island Affiliate and Sinapi Law Associates, Ltd. on brief for
appellants.
     Jeffrey B. Pine, Attorney General, Thomas A. Palombo, Special
Assistant Attorney General, and Ellen Evans Alexander, Deputy Chief
Legal Counsel on Motion for Summary Disposition for appellees.

March 4, 1999

                                 
             Per Curiam.  Upon careful review of the record, the
  briefs, and the history of this case, Taylor  v. State of Rhode
  Island, 101 F.3d 780 (1st Cir. 1996), rev'g 908 F.Supp. 92
  (D.R.I. 1995), we conclude that the district court properly
  granted summary judgment on the remaining procedural due
  process issue.  We reach this conclusion essentially for the
  reasons stated by the district court in the Memorandum and
  Decision dated August 7, 1998, and we do not need to embellish
  upon those reasons.  The appellants' particular arguments do
  not persuade us otherwise.
             The appellees' motion for summary disposition is
  granted. 
             The judgment is affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.