McLaughlin v. Secretary of Navy

Opinion

USCA1 Opinion

November 14, 1995

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT


____________________


No. 95-1380 



                                  JAMES McLAUGHLIN,



                                Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                          v.



                     UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, ET AL.,



                                Defendants, Appellees.


____________________



                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE



                       [Hon. Gene Carter, U.S. District Judge]
                                          ___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Selya, Cyr and Boudin,

                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________



                                 ____________________



            James McLaughlin on brief pro se.
            ________________

            Jay  P.  McCloskey,  United  States  Attorney,  Frank  W.  Hunger,
            __________________                              _________________

        Assistant Attorney General,  Marleigh D. Dover and Jennifer Hay Zacks,
                                     _________________     __________________

        Attorneys, Appellate Staff, Civil  Division, Department of Justice, on

        brief for appellees.


____________________


____________________



Per Curiam.  We  have carefully reviewed the record
                      __________



            and  the  briefs of  the  parties  and  summarily affirm  the



            judgment of  the district  court for essentially  the reasons



            stated in  the recommended decision of  the magistrate judge.



            The  district court  adopted the  reasoning of  this decision



            when it  dismissed appellant's complaint, and  we, too, think



            that reasoning is persuasive.  Appellant's motion for summary



            disposition is therefore denied.



                      Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. R. 27.1.
                      ________   ___


-3-