Court Opinion

ID: 2964322
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:23:59.434234+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:47.130677
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

        September 23, 1996      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 96-1200

                                    MOSHE ROTHMAN,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                             WORCESTER POLICE DEPARTMENT,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                   [Hon. Nathaniel M. Gorton, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Selya, Cyr and Boudin,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Moshe Rothman on brief pro se.
            _____________

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                 Per Curiam.   Pro se plaintiff  Moshe Rothman appeals  a
                 __________    ___ __

            district   court  order  that   dismissed  his  civil  rights

            complaint as frivolous  under 28 U.S.C.    1915(d) because it

            is barred by  the statute of  limitations.  After  thoroughly

            reviewing the  record and  appellant's brief on  appeal, this

            court concludes  that the district court's  order is correct.

            See Street v. Vose,  936 F.2d 38,  39 (1st Cir. 1991),  cert.
            ___ ______    ____                                      _____

            denied, 502 U.S. 1063 (1992).   Accordingly, the judgment  of
            ______

            the  district court  is summarily  affirmed.  See  Local Rule
                                               ________   ___

            27.1. 

                                         -2-