Solimine v. United States

Opinion

USCA1 Opinion

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT


____________________


No. 94-2250



                                  ANTHONY SOLIMINE,



                                Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                          v.



                          UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL.,



                                Defendants, Appellees.


____________________



                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS



                     [Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________

                           Selya and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________



                                 ____________________



            Anthony Solimine on brief pro se.
            ________________

            Donald K.  Stern,  United States  Attorney, and  David S.  Mackey,
            ________________                                 ________________

        Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellees.


____________________



                                   August 29, 1995

                                 ____________________



Per  Curiam.  The  underlying district court  action and
                 ___________



            this appeal are  essentially identical  to appellant's  other



            district court complaints and previous appeals in Solimine v.
                                                              ________



            F.B.I., Nos. 94-1873;  94-1995 (1st Cir. Mar. 24,  1995).  As
            ______



            we noted therein, the underlying action is frivolous as it is



            based on "an  indisputably meritless legal theory."   Neitzke
                                                                  _______



            v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989).
               ________



                 Appellant's motion for oral argument is denied.
                                                         _______



                 We  summarily affirm  for  the  reasons  stated  in  the
                               ______



            district court's  memorandum  and order  of  dismissal  dated



            September 21, 1994.  Loc. R. 27.1.


-2-