Court Opinion

ID: 2963834
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:15:53.065753+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:10:41.049076
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          December 21, 1995
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1504 

                                   IDALIA MORALES,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                    [Hon. Raymond L. Acosta, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Selya, Stahl and Lynch,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Idalia Morales on brief pro se.
            ______________
            Guillermo Gil,  United States Attorney,  and Maria Hortensia  Rios
            _____________                                _____________________
        Gandara, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.
        _______

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                      Per Curiam.    Reviewing de  novo the dismissal  of
                      __________               __  ____

            plaintiff's  complaint for failure to state a claim, and upon

            consideration of the parties' briefs and the record, we agree

            with the district  court's analysis and  affirm substantially

            for the reasons set forth in its memorandum order of February

            15, 1995.

                      Affirmed.  See Loc. R. 27.1.
                      ________   ___