Court Opinion

ID: 2963899
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:17:06.084825+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:39.828300
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

        January 18, 1996        [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                           
                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1735 

                                 JENNIFER GOLDSTEIN,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                             HARVARD UNIVERSITY, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                     [Hon. Nancy J. Gertner, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                           Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________

                                 ____________________

            Jennifer Goldstein on brief pro se.
            __________________
            Diane  E.   Lopez,  Office   of  the   General  Counsel,   Harvard
            _________________
        University, on brief for appellees.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                      Per Curiam.  Plaintiff/appellant Jennifer Goldstein
                      __________

            appeals  from  a district  court  order  dismissing her  258-

            paragraph complaint without prejudice because of its  failure

            to conform to  the concise pleading  requirements of Fed.  R.

            Civ.  P.  Rule  8(a)(2).   We  have  carefully  reviewed  the

            complaint and the parties' briefs.  We affirm essentially for

            the reasons stated by the district court.  The district court

            order does not, on its face, preclude an eventual decision on

            the merits,  and appellant makes no  meaningful argument that

            she  is foreclosed  from pursuing  her claims.   We  add that

            appellant's allegation of judicial bias was not raised below,

            and, in  any event, is  meritless.  See Brody  v. President &
                                                ___ _____     ___________

            Fellows of Harvard College,  664 F.2d 10, 11 (1st  Cir. 1981)
            __________________________

            (noting that all judges  come to the bench with  a background

            of  experiences,  associations and  viewpoints and  that this

            background  is  seldom  sufficient  in itself  to  provide  a

            reasonable basis  for recusal),  cert. denied, 455  U.S. 1027
                                             ____________

            (1982).  The request to seal the dismissal order is denied.

                      Affirmed.
                      ________

                                         -2-