Court Opinion

ID: 2964888
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:32:37.468949+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:21:35.265327
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 97-1379

                                  STEVEN S. CROOKER,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                                  JOHN MAGAW, ETC.,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                    [Hon. Michael A. Ponsor, U.S. District Judge]

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                               Selya, Boudin and Stahl,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Steven S. Crooker on brief pro se.
            _________________
            Donald K.  Stern, United  States Attorney, and  Karen L.  Goodwin,
            ________________                                _________________
        Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                  September 11, 1997
                                 ____________________

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

            the record on appeal.   We agree with the district court that

            the  agency ruling was  neither arbitrary, capricious  nor an

            abuse of discretion nor do  we think that the agency's action

            rests on any misinterpretation of the pertinent statute.   We

            therefore affirm the judgment entered on March 7, 1997.

                 Affirmed. 
                 _________

                                         -2-