Gorod v. Commonwealth of MA
Case Date: 10/14/1997
Court: United States Court of Appeals
Docket No: 97-1028
|
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ____________________ No. 97-1028 No. 97-1767 GERTRUDE DAVIS GOROD, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, ET AL., Defendants, Appellees. ____________________ APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. Edward F. Harrington, U.S. District Judge] ___________________ ____________________ Before Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________ Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges. ______________ ____________________ Gertrude Davis Gorod on briefs pro se. ____________________ Scott Harshbarger, Attorney General, and Jason Barshak, Assistant _________________ _____________ Attorney General, on briefs for appellees. ____________________ October 9, 1997 ____________________ Per Curiam. Appellant Gertrude Gorod seeks to overturn ___________ a district court order that dismissed her complaint for damages under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for the failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. While this court generally disfavors such dismissals absent advance notice and an opportunity to amend, see, e.g., Wyatt v. City of Boston, ___ ____ _____ ______________ 35 F.3d 13, 14-15 (1st Cir. 1994); Street v. Fair, 918 F.2d ______ ____ 269, 272 (1st Cir. 1990)(per curiam), here it is clear that appellant cannot prove any set of facts that would entitle her to relief. Accordingly, the order of dismissal is summarily affirmed. See Local Rule 27.1. Appellant also ________ ___ challenges an order denying her motion to default the defendants. This order was issued after the judgment of dismissal had entered and the case was docketed on appeal. It is therefore a nullity. Appeal no. 97-1767 is dismissed.1 1 _________ ____________________ 1We further note that the defendants were never in 1 default. The case was dismissed before their answer became due. -2- |