Brown v. Maloney

First Circuit

Brown v. Maloney

104 F. App'x 759

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedJuly 27, 2004

Docket03-1521

StatusPublished

This text of 104 F. App'x 759 (Brown v. Maloney) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

104 F. App'x 759, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-maloney-ca1-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack