Court Opinion

ID: 2961697
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 20:46:35.110679+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:41.547924
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          December 29, 1992                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 92-1830                                  EUGENE B. BOWLER,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                                   STATE OF MAINE,                                 Defendant, Appellee.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE                     [Hon. Morton A. Brody, U.S. District Judge]                                            ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                 Breyer, Chief Judge,                                         ___________                         Torruella and Selya, Circuit Judges.                                              ______________                                 ____________________            Eugene B. Bowler on brief pro se.            ________________            Michel   E.  Carpenter,   Attorney   General,   Phyllis  Gardiner,            ______________________                          _________________        Assistant  Attorney General,  and  Thomas D.  Warren, Deputy  Attorney                                           _________________        General, on brief for appellee.                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                 Per Curiam.   For the  reasons cited  by the  Magistrate                 __________            Judge in his  Recommended Decision  of May 26,  1992, and  in            accordance with the Supreme Court's intervening discussion in            New  York v. United States,  112 S. Ct.  2408, 2417-20 (1992)            _________    _____________            (Tenth  Amendment);  id.  at 2432-33  (Guarantee  Clause), we                                 ___            affirm the judgment of the district court.                 Affirmed.                 _________