Bowler v. State of Maine
Opinion
USCA1 Opinion
December 29, 1992
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 92-1830
EUGENE B. BOWLER,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
STATE OF MAINE,
Defendant, Appellee.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE
[Hon. Morton A. Brody, U.S. District Judge]
___________________
____________________
Before
Breyer, Chief Judge,
___________
Torruella and Selya, Circuit Judges.
______________
____________________
Eugene B. Bowler on brief pro se.
________________
Michel E. Carpenter, Attorney General, Phyllis Gardiner,
______________________ _________________
Assistant Attorney General, and Thomas D. Warren, Deputy Attorney
_________________
General, on brief for appellee.
____________________
____________________
Per Curiam. For the reasons cited by the Magistrate
__________
Judge in his Recommended Decision of May 26, 1992, and in
accordance with the Supreme Court's intervening discussion in
New York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408, 2417-20 (1992)
_________ _____________
(Tenth Amendment); id. at 2432-33 (Guarantee Clause), we
___
affirm the judgment of the district court.
Affirmed.
_________
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Bowler v. State of Maine, (1st Cir. 1992).
Bowler v. State of Maine (Bowler v. State of Maine) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
New York v. United States
505 U.S. 144 (Supreme Court, 1992)