Court Opinion

ID: 2963928
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:17:36.418198+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:00:25.775800
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          February 28, 1996
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

          No. 95-1774 

                                  FAROUK O. MARTINS,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                         CHARLES HAYDEN GOODWILL INN SCHOOL,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                     [Hon. Robert E. Keeton, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

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

                                 ____________________

          Farouk Martins on brief pro se.
          ______________
          Andrew  L.  Matz  and  Stoneman,  Chandler  &  Miller  on  brief for
          ________________       ______________________________
     appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                 Per Curiam.   We have reviewed  the parties' briefs  and
                 __________

            the  record on appeal.  We affirm the district court judgment

            of  July   17,  1995,  granting  summary   judgment  for  the

            defendant, essentially for the reasons stated at the close of

            the hearing  held July 6,  1995, transcript pages  34-48, and

            the memorandum and order, dated July 17, 1995.

                 We  add only  that there  was neither  error of  law nor

            abuse of  discretion in the district  court's earlier vacatur

            of a  default order entered against defendant as it correctly

            concluded that plaintiff had not properly served his original

            complaint and,  in any event, that  original complaint failed

            to state a claim within the jurisdiction of the  court, as it

            inadequately alleged racial discrimination as its basis.

                 Affirmed.
                 _________