Santini v. Hon. Gierbolini
Case Date: 06/04/1997
Court: United States Court of Appeals
Docket No: 96-2012
|
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ____________________ No. 96-2012 DOMONIC SANTINI, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. HONORABLE GILBERTO GIERBOLINI, ET AL., Defendants, Appellees. ____________________ APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO [Hon. Salvador E. Casellas, U.S. District Judge] ____________________ Before Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________ Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges. ______________ ____________________ Domonic Santini on brief pro se. _______________ Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Jorge E. Vega-Pacheco and _____________ _____________________ Nelson Perez-Sosa, Assistant United States Attorneys, and Jose A. __________________ ________ Quilles-Espinosa, Senior Litigation Counsel, on brief for appellees. ________________ ____________________ June 4, 1997 ____________________ Per Curiam. After carefully reviewing the record __________ and the parties' briefs, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sua sponte dismissing the ___ ______ complaint of appellant Domonic Santini. We add that nothing in appellant's brief persuades us that allowing him to amend the complaint would be anything but futile. See Shockley v. ___ ________ Jones, 823 F.2d 1068, 1072-73 (7th Cir. 1987). We therefore _____ affirm the judgment of the district court essentially for the ______ reasons stated in its Opinion and Order, Santini v. _______ Gierbolini, 937 F.Supp. 130 (D.P.R. 1996). __________ Affirmed. ________ -2- |