Court Opinion

ID: 2961856
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 20:48:53.672608+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:14.743825
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          April 1, 1993                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 92-2270                                 RAYMOND R. GADREAULT,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                            HOWARD CASE, CHIEF OF POLICE,                          PALMER POLICE DEPARTMENT, ET AL.,                                Defendants, Appellees.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                    [Hon. Frank H. Freedman, U.S. District Judge]                                             ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                 Breyer, Chief Judge,                                         ___________                          Torruella and Cyr, Circuit Judges.                                             ______________                                 ____________________            Raymond R. Gadreault on brief pro se.            ____________________            Kimberly M. Saillant and Morrison, Mahoney  & Miller on Motion for            ____________________     ___________________________        Summary Affirmance for appellees.                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                      Per  Curiam.    Plaintiff argues  that  Briscoe  v.                      ___________                             _______            LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983), is an unconstitutional  decision.            _____            As  a  lower federal  court, we  are  bound by  Supreme Court            decisions    and    cannot    independently   assess    their            constitutionality.   The judgment for  defendants is affirmed            substantially for the  reasons stated by  the magistrate  and            district court.                      Affirmed.                      ________