Sevigny v. State of Maine

Opinion

USCA1 Opinion

November 7, 1995

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT


____________________


No. 95-1601 


FRANCOIS O. SEVIGNY AND ALBERTA M. SEVIGNY,

                               Plaintiffs, Appellants,



                                          v.



                                   STATE OF MAINE,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.



                                 ____________________


No. 95-1640 


FRANCOIS O. SEVIGNY AND ALBERTA M. SEVIGNY,

                               Plaintiffs, Appellants,



                                          v.



                               STATE OF MAINE, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.



                                 ____________________


APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE



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



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Cyr, Boudin and Lynch,

                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________



                                 ____________________



Francois O. Sevigny and Alberta M. Sevigny on briefs pro se.
            ___________________     __________________

            Andrew Ketterer,  Attorney General,  and Leanne  Robbin, Assistant
            _______________                          ______________

        Attorney General, on brief for state appellees.

            William H.  Dale and Jensen  Baird Gardner &  Henry, on  brief for
            ________________     ______________________________

        Town of Sanford appellees.

            Sally  J. Daggett and  Jensen Baird Gardner &  Henry, on brief for
            _________________      _____________________________

        appellees, Jensen Baird  Gardner &  Henry, William H.  Dale, James  N.

        Katsiaficas and Sally J. Daggett.



                                 ____________________


____________________



Per Curiam.  We  have reviewed the record on  appeal and
                 __________



            the briefs filed by the parties in these related appeals.  We



            find  neither error  of law  nor abuse  of discretion  in the



            district   court's  disposition   of  these  matters.     We,



            therefore,  affirm   the   dismissals  of   each   complaint,



            essentially  for the  reasons  stated in  the district  court



            order of May 15, 1995 and the judgment of May 25, 1995.



                 The appellants' request that we  reconsider our decision



            submitting these  appeals on briefs without  oral argument is



            denied.
            _______



                 The order of May 15, 1995, in district court docket #95-



            MC-46 and the  judgment of  May 25, 1995,  in district  court



            docket #95-cv-2 are affirmed.
                                _________


-3-