Court Opinion

ID: 2965045
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:34:30.644825+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:08.615756
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 97-1517

                                 ROBERTO VIZCARRONDO,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

             BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PUERTO RICO, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                    [Hon. Hector M. Laffitte, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                               Selya, Boudin and Lynch,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Roberto Vizcarrondo on brief pro se.
            ___________________
            Gustavo  A.  Gelpi and  Feldstein,  Gelpi  & Gotay  on  brief  for
            __________________      __________________________
        appellee Board of Trustees of the University of Puerto Rico.

                                 ____________________

                                      
                                   December 8, 1997
                                 ____________________

                 Per  Curiam.    Pro se  plaintiff  Roberto  Vizcarrondo 
                 ___________     ___ __

            appeals a district  court judgment that dismissed  his claims

            for employment discrimination as time-barred.  This court has

            thoroughly reviewed  the record  and the  parties' briefs  on

            appeal.   We conclude that  the district court's  judgment is

            correct.   Plaintiff's  allegations wholly  fail  to state  a

            claim  for a  continuing violation.  See,  e.g., Morrison  v.
                                                 ___   ____  ________

            Carleton Woolen  Mills, Inc.,  108 F.3d  420,  443 (1st  Cir.
            ____________________________

            1997)); De Leon Otero v. Rubero, 820 F.2d 18, 19-20 (1st Cir.
                    _____________    ______

            1987); Collins v.  United Air Lines, Inc., 514  F.2d 594, 596
                   _______     ______________________

            (9th Cir. 1975)(refusal to reinstate employee does not render

            initial violation a  continuing one).  Plaintiff  has further

            failed   to  support   his  claim   for   equitable  tolling.

            Accordingly,  the judgment of the district court is summarily

            affirmed.  See Local Rule 27.1.1
                                           1
            ________   ___

                                
            ____________________

               1As we conclude that the district court's dismissal was in
               1
            all respects correct  on the merits, we need  not resolve the
            appellees' contention that this court lacks jurisdiction over
            plaintiff's appeal.   See United  States v. Stoller,  78 F.3d
                                  ___ ______________    _______
            710 (1st Cir.), cert. dismissed, 117 S.Ct. 378 (1996).  
                            _____ _________

                                         -2-