Foster v. Wal-Mart

Opinion

USCA1 Opinion

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT



                                 ____________________


No. 96-1662



                                 ARLENE SIMS FOSTER,



                                Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                          v.



                                WAL-MART STORES, INC.,



                                 Defendant, Appellee.



                                 ____________________


APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE



                   [Hon. Joseph A. DiClerico, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                 Selya, Circuit Judge,
                                        _____________

                              Cyr, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                   ____________________

                              and Lynch, Circuit Judge.
                                         _____________



                                 ____________________



            Arlene Sims Foster on brief pro se.
            __________________

            E.  Tupper Kinder and  Nelson, Kinder,  Mosseau &  Gordon, P.C. on
            _________________      ________________________________________

        brief for appellee.


____________________



                                    March 3, 1997

                                                      
                                 ____________________



Per Curiam.   We have reviewed  the parties' briefs  and
                 __________



            the  record  on  appeal.    Appellant,  Arlene  Sims  Foster,



            challenges only the district  court's dismissal of her common



            law claim of wrongful discharge and her claim of  intentional



            and negligent  infliction of  emotional distress.   We affirm



            that  dismissal essentially  for  the reasons  stated in  the



            district court's order of March 15, 1996.



                 Affirmed.  Loc. R. 27.1.
                 _________


-2-