USCA1 Opinion
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 96-1094
MICHAEL A. CROOKER,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
TAX DIVISION OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Michael Ponsor, U.S. District Judge]
____________________
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge,
___________
Boudin and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
______________
____________________
Michael Alan Crooker on brief pro se.
____________________
Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, and Karen L. Goodwin,
________________ _________________
Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellees.
____________________
August 20, 1996
____________________
Per Curiam. We have reviewed the parties' briefs and
___________
the record on appeal. As in the case of an award of
attorney's fees under the Freedom of Information Act, 5
U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(E), see Crooker v. United States Parole
___ _______ _____________________
Comm'n, 776 F.2d 366, 367 (1st Cir. 1985), the decision to
______
award litigation costs, even to a complainant found to have
substantially prevailed, is within the sound discretion of
the district court. The magistrate judge amply supported his
recommendation that costs not be awarded - a recommendation
adopted by the district court. There was no abuse of
discretion in declining to award costs in this case.
Appellant's motion for summary reversal is denied.
_______
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
_________
-2-
