Torres v. Eli Lilly ( 1997 )

USCA1 Opinion

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]







                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT



                              _________________________





          No. 97-1801





                                   HUMBERTO TORRES,



                                Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                          v.



                         ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, INC., ET AL.,



                                Defendants, Appellees.



                              _________________________



                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO



                   [Hon. Daniel R. Dominguez, U.S. District Judge]
___________________



                              _________________________



                                        Before



                               Selya, Stahl and Lynch,

                                    Circuit Judges.
______________



                              _________________________



               Rosa M. Nogueras de Gonzalez for appellant.
____________________________

               Carl Schuster,  with whom Carlos R. Paula and Schuster Usera
_____________             _______________     ______________

          Aguilo & Santiago were on brief, for appellees.
_________________



                              _________________________





                                  December 10, 1997

                              _________________________











































                    Per Curiam.   We have carefully reviewed  the record on
Per Curiam.
__________



          appeal and fully considered the points advanced by  the plaintiff



          (both  in his briefs and at oral argument).   In the end, we find



          these  appeals to  be so  utterly lacking  in merit  that further



          comment  would  be gratuitous.    It  suffices  to say  that  the



          district  court was amply  justified in granting  the defendants'



          motion for  summary judgment  for the reasons  expressed in  that



          court's thoughtful  rescript.  See  Torres v. Eli Lilly  and Co.,
___  ______    __________________



          Civ. No. 95-1042 (DRD) (D.P.R. March 20, 1997) (unpublished).  We



          add  only that  the  plaintiff's counsel  is  fortunate that  the



          district court did not choose to invoke the provisions of Fed. R.



          Civ. P. 11 and/or 28 U.S.C.   1927.



                    We need go no further.  The judgment is summarily







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

















































                                          2