USCA1 Opinion
December 29, 1992
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 92-1830
EUGENE B. BOWLER,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
STATE OF MAINE,
Defendant, Appellee.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE
[Hon. Morton A. Brody, U.S. District Judge]
___________________
____________________
Before
Breyer, Chief Judge,
___________
Torruella and Selya, Circuit Judges.
______________
____________________
Eugene B. Bowler on brief pro se.
________________
Michel E. Carpenter, Attorney General, Phyllis Gardiner,
______________________ _________________
Assistant Attorney General, and Thomas D. Warren, Deputy Attorney
_________________
General, on brief for appellee.
____________________
____________________
Per Curiam. For the reasons cited by the Magistrate
__________
Judge in his Recommended Decision of May 26, 1992, and in
accordance with the Supreme Court's intervening discussion in
New York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408, 2417-20 (1992)
_________ _____________
(Tenth Amendment); id. at 2432-33 (Guarantee Clause), we
___
affirm the judgment of the district court.
Affirmed.
_________