Bowler v. State of Maine ( 1992 )

USCA1 Opinion

          December 29, 1992
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]


                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT



                                 ____________________


        No. 92-1830

                                  EUGENE B. BOWLER,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                                   STATE OF MAINE,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

                     [Hon. Morton A. Brody, U.S. District Judge]
                                            ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                 Breyer, Chief Judge,
                                         ___________
                         Torruella and Selya, Circuit Judges.
                                              ______________

                                 ____________________

            Eugene B. Bowler on brief pro se.
            ________________
            Michel   E.  Carpenter,   Attorney   General,   Phyllis  Gardiner,
            ______________________                          _________________
        Assistant  Attorney General,  and  Thomas D.  Warren, Deputy  Attorney
                                           _________________
        General, on brief for appellee.
                                 ____________________


                                 ____________________




















                 Per Curiam.   For the  reasons cited  by the  Magistrate
                 __________

            Judge in his  Recommended Decision  of May 26,  1992, and  in

            accordance with the Supreme Court's intervening discussion in

            New  York v. United States,  112 S. Ct.  2408, 2417-20 (1992)
            _________    _____________

            (Tenth  Amendment);  id.  at 2432-33  (Guarantee  Clause), we
                                 ___

            affirm the judgment of the district court.

                 Affirmed.
                 _________