Azubuko v. Framingham College

• Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
• Decided: May 9, 1995
• Docket: 95-1035
• Status: Published

Opinion

USCA1 Opinion

May 9, 1995
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

____________________

No. 95-1035 

                                  CHUKWU E. AZUBUKO,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                     BOARD OF TRUSTEES, FRAMINGHAM STATE COLLEGE,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.

____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                     [Hon. Joseph L. Tauro, U.S. District Judge]
                                            ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                          Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________

                                 ____________________

            Chukwu E. Azubuko on brief pro se.
            _________________
            Scott Harshbarger,  Attorney General,  and Amy Spector,  Assistant
            _________________                          ___________
        Attorney General, on brief for appellee.

____________________

____________________



Per Curiam.  We have carefully reviewed the  briefs
                      __________

            of the parties and the record in this case and agree with the

            district  court's conclusion that  appellant's federal action

            is  barred  by  res  judicata.    See  Mulrain  v.  Board  of
                                              ___  _______      _________

            Selectmen, 944 F.2d  23, 25-26 (1st  Cir. 1991) (per  curiam)
            _________

            (where  a federal lawsuit concerns the same events as a prior

            state lawsuit, a final judgment in the state  action prevents

            the plaintiff from  pursuing the federal  action).  See  also
                                                                ___  ____

            Isaac v.  Schwartz, 706  F.2d 15,  17 (1st  Cir.  1983).   We
            _____     ________

            therefore affirm the judgment  of the district court for  the
                      ______

            reasons stated in its Memorandum dated November 10, 1994.