Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Torres v. Eli Lilly, 97-1801 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Number: 97-1801 Visitors: 6
Filed: Dec. 10, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Circuit Judges., ____________________________, Carl Schuster, with whom Carlos R. Paula and Schuster Usera, _____________ _______________ ______________, Aguilo Santiago were on brief, for appellees.court's thoughtful rescript.district court did not choose to invoke the provisions of Fed.
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[NOT FOR PUBLICATION] [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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 No. 95-1042 (DRD) (D.P.R. March 20, 1997) (unpublished).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






Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer