Polis v. Weld

USCA1 Opinion

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            United States Court of Appeals

                                For the First Circuit

                                 ____________________



          No. 97-1934



                                  WILLIAM J. POLIS,



                                Plaintiff - Appellant,



                                          v.



                                WILLIAM WELD, ET AL.,



                               Defendants - Appellees.



                                 ____________________



                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS



                     [Hon. Joseph L. Tauro, U.S. District Judge]
___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                               Torruella, Chief Judge,
___________



                          Boudin and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
______________



                                _____________________



               Paul S. Hughes for appellant.
______________

               Lucy  A. Wall, Assistant  Attorney General, with  whom Scott
_____________                                          _____

          Harshbarger, Attorney General, was on brief for appellee.
___________







                                 ____________________



                                  December 18, 1997

                                 ____________________















































                    Per Curiam.   After full consideration of  the parties'
Per Curiam
___________



          briefs and the  record provided for our review,  we conclude that



          the  district  court  properly  granted the  defendant-appellees'



          motion to dismiss under Fed. R.  Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure  to



          state a claim  upon which relief could be granted.  We reach this



          conclusion substantially for  the reasons stated by  the district



          court.    Affirmed.   See  1st  Cir.  Loc.  R. 27.1.    Costs  to
________    ___



          appellees.  Fed. R. App. P. 39(a).













































































                                         -2-