Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

MacFarlane v. Rich, 98-1424 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Number: 98-1424 Visitors: 8
Filed: Oct. 05, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary:  MacFarlane concedes that the district, court properly dismissed the complaint on the grounds that it, 1) fails to adequately allege state action and 2) fails to, state a cause of action under New Hampshire law because the, contested alimony order has not yet been overturned in state, court.
USCA1 Opinion


      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION--NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]

United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit





No. 98-1424

JAMES MACFARLANE,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

BERYL RICH,

Defendant, Appellee.



APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

[Hon. Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr., U.S. District Judge]



Before

Selya, Stahl and Lynch,
Circuit Judges.




James MacFarlane on brief pro se.
Diane M. Gorrow and Soule, Leslie, Kidder, Sayward & Loughmanon Motion for Summary Disposition for appellee.




October 13, 1998








Per Curiam. James MacFarlane appeals pro se from the
district court's dismissal of his complaint pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). MacFarlane concedes that the district
court properly dismissed the complaint on the grounds that it
1) fails to adequately allege state action and 2) fails to
state a cause of action under New Hampshire law because the
contested alimony order has not yet been overturned in state
court. We affirm the dismissal of the complaint on those two
grounds. See Loc. R. 27.1.



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