Court Opinion

ID: 2964789
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:31:07.704236+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:49.338530
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                           UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                ____________________
       No. 97-1203 
                                JOHN S. NORTON, SR.,
                                Plaintiff, Appellant,
                                         v.
                                TOWN OF LONG ISLAND,
                                Defendant, Appellee.
                                ____________________
                    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE
                     [Hon. D. Brock Hornby, U.S. District Judge]
                                ____________________
                                       Before
                               Selya, Boudin and Stahl,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                ____________________
            John S. Norton on brief pro se.
            John S. Whitman
                          , Carol I. Eisenberg
                                               and 
                                                   Richardson, Whitman, Large
       & Badger, on brief for appellee.
                                ____________________
                                    JULY 29, 1997
                                ____________________

                      Per Curiam
                               . We have carefully reviewed the record on
            appeal and affirm on grounds of issue preclusion. In a prior
            suit, the appellant was given the opportunity to fully litigate
            the issue of whether his claims are cognizable under the Civil
            Rights Act. The judgment against the appellant in the prior
            suit bars him from re-litigating the issue here.
                      Affirmed. Loc. R. 27.1.
                                
               The appellant's motion for oral argument is hereby denied.
            Oral argument would not advance the decisional process.   See
            1st Cir. Loc. R. 34.1.
                                         -2-