Court Opinion

ID: 2964384
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:24:54.049206+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:11:09.312990
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

        October 11, 1996        [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 96-1634

                                    NEIL GLOVER, 

                                 Plaintiff, Appellee,

                                          v.

                                 SGT. DAVID CRAWFORD,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

                   [Hon. Steven J. McAuliffe, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

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

                                 ____________________

            Jeffrey R. Howard, Attorney General,  and Ann F. Larney, Assistant
            _________________                         _____________
        Attorney General, on brief for appellant.
            Paul Bennett and Frank L. Bruno on brief for appellee.
            ____________     ______________

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                      Per  Curiam.    Appellant-defendant David  Crawford
                      ___________

            appeals  from  the district  court's  denial  of his  renewed

            motion for judgment as a matter  of law.  We summarily affirm
                                                         _________ ______

            the denial of the motion for substantially the reasons stated

            by the district court in its order dated May 24, 1996.

                      Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. R. 27.1.
                      ________   ___

                                         -2-