McDonald v. Perkins ( 1995 )

USCA1 Opinion

          January 30, 1995      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________


        No. 94-1079 

                                  WILLIAM MCDONALD,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                   DEBRA A. PERKINS, AND VNA, MILFORD-WHITINSVILLE,

                                Defendants, Appellees.


                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                   [Hon. Nathaniel M. Gorton, U.S. District Judge]
___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
___________
                           Cyr and Boudin, Circuit Judges.
______________

                                 ____________________

            William McDonald, pro se.
________________
            Leslie  Lockard  and Gaffin  &  Krattenmaker,  P.C. on  brief  for
_______________      ______________________________
        appellee Visiting Nurse Association of the Greater Milford-Northbridge
        Area.
            Alexandra B.  Harvey and Taylor, Anderson  & Travers  on brief for
____________________     ___________________________
        appellee Debra A. Perkins.


                                 ____________________


                                 ____________________



















                      Per  Curiam.   We  have  reviewed  the decision  to
___________

            dismiss  the   complaint   de  novo,   Negron-Gaztambide   v.
_________________

            Hernandez-Torres,  35  F.3d  25,  27  (1st  Cir.  1994),  and
________________

            conclude, accepting the complaint's allegations as true, that

            they are insufficient  to state a cause of action as a matter

            of law  under any theory  presented.   Vartanian v.  Monsanto
_________     ________

            Co.,  14 F.3d  697, 700  (1st Cir.  1994).   Consequently, we
___

            affirm the  decision of the district  court for substantially

            the reasons  stated in its  memorandum and order  of December

            23, 1993.

                      Affirmed.
________