Court Opinion

ID: 2964589
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:27:59.177781+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:02:09.116316
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 96-1815

                                   DEBRA L. MORGAN,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                       BOSTON REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                      [Hon. Patti B. Saris, U.S. District Judge]
                                            ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                 Cyr, Stahl and Lynch,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Debra L. Morgan on brief pro se.
            _______________
            Rebecca J. Wilson, William  V. Hoch and Peabody & Arnold on  brief
            _________________  ________________     ________________
        for appellees.

                                 ____________________

                                    March 19, 1997
                                 ____________________

                      Per  Curiam.     Even assuming  appellant Debra  L.
                      ___________

            Morgan held a property interest in her position of employment

            with the Boston Redevelopment  Authority, a careful review of

            the  record and  the parties' briefs  on appeal  satisfies us

            that the district court correctly ruled that Morgan failed to

            demonstrate a trialworthy issue  as to whether the defendants

            acted  arbitrarily  and   capriciously  in  terminating   her

            employment.  We therefore affirm the judgment of the district

            court in  this regard for  essentially the reasons  stated in

            its Memorandum and Order, dated May 22, 1996.

                      Affirmed.  See Local Rule 27.1.
                      ________   ___

                                         -2-