Court Opinion

ID: 2963707
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:14:09.160853+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:21:05.541285
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          October 26, 1995      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1352

                                  ANTHONY SOLIMINE,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

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

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Selya, Cyr and Boudin,
                                   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 appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

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

            the record on  appeal.   We agree with  the district  court's

            conclusion   that  appellant's   claim   is  based   on   "an

            indisputably   meritless  legal  theory."    See  Neitzke  v.
                                                         ___  _______

            Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989).  We, therefore, summarily
            ________

            affirm  essentially for  the reasons  stated in  the district

            court's memorandum and order, dated February 27, 1995.

                 Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. R. 27.1.
                 _________  ___

                                         -2-