Court Opinion

ID: 2964338
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:24:10.533432+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:11:07.545882
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

        September 12, 1996      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 96-1637

                                   GEORGE BAKALIS,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                      GUNARS RUTKOVSKIS, ELIZABETH R. O'DONNELL
                                AND PETER M. LAURIAT,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ___________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                     [Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

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

                                 ____________________

            George Bakalis on brief pro se.
            ______________

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                      Per Curiam.  We affirm the dismissal of plaintiff's
                      __________

            action for the  reasons stated in the district  court's April

            3, 1996 memorandum and order.   For the reasons stated by the

            district court, we can not review the state court's dismissal

            of plaintiff's action.   As for plaintiff's allegations about

            the  library's refusal  to  accept his  papers  and the  city

            attorney's actions,  they do  not state  any claim for  which

            relief may be granted in a federal court.

                      Affirmed.  Loc. R. 27.1.
                      ________

                                         -2-