Brown v. Maloney

First Circuit

Brown v. Maloney

104 F. App'x 759

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Brown v. Maloney. Read the opinion of the Court — 267 F.3d 36 →

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit·Decided July 27, 2004·No. 03-1521·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

After carefully considering the briefs and record on appeal, we affirm for substantially the reasons stated by the district court. Among other considerations, the appellant failed to state a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act, 42 U.S.C. § 749; Parker v. Universidad de Puerto Rico, 225 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir.2000). The court did not abuse its discretion in denying his second motion to amend his complaint. Mirpuri *760 v. ACT Mfg., Inc., 212 F.3d 624 (1st Cir. 2000).

Affirmed. 1st Cir. R. 27(c).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

After carefully considering the briefs and record on appeal, we affirm for substantially the reasons stated by the district court. Among other considerations, the appellant failed to state a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act, 42 U.S.C. § 749; Parker v. Universidad de Puerto Rico, 225 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir.2000). The court did not abuse its discretion in denying his second motion to amend his complaint. Mirpuri *760 v. ACT Mfg., Inc., 212 F.3d 624 (1st Cir. 2000).

Affirmed. 1st Cir. R. 27(c).

Brown v. Maloney, 104 F. App'x 759 (1st Cir. 2004).

Pincite

104 F. App'x 759 (Brown v. Maloney) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related