Solimine v. USA
Case Date: 08/29/1995
Court: United States Court of Appeals
Docket No: 94-2250
|
____________________ No. 94-2250 ANTHONY SOLIMINE, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL., Defendants, Appellees. ____________________ APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge] ___________________ ____________________ Before Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________ Selya and Lynch, Circuit Judges. ______________ ____________________ Anthony Solimine on brief pro se. ________________ Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, and David S. Mackey, ________________ ________________ Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellees. ____________________ August 29, 1995 ____________________ Per Curiam. The underlying district court action and ___________ this appeal are essentially identical to appellant's other district court complaints and previous appeals in Solimine v. ________ F.B.I., Nos. 94-1873; 94-1995 (1st Cir. Mar. 24, 1995). As ______ we noted therein, the underlying action is frivolous as it is based on "an indisputably meritless legal theory." Neitzke _______ v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). ________ Appellant's motion for oral argument is denied. _______ We summarily affirm for the reasons stated in the ______ district court's memorandum and order of dismissal dated September 21, 1994. Loc. R. 27.1. -2- |