USCA1 Opinion
October 6, 1994 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 94-1665
MICHAEL ALAN CROOKER,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant, Appellee.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Douglas P. Woodlock, U.S. District Judge]
___________________
____________________
Before
Cyr, Boudin and Stahl,
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 appellee.
____________________
____________________
Per Curiam. We have reviewed the parties' briefs and
__________
the record on appeal. We agree with the district court that
the appellant has not suffered a "distinct and palpable,"
Conservation Law Found. v. Reilly, 950 F.2d 38, 40 (1st Cir.
________________________ ______
1991), "real and immediate," American Postal Workers Union v.
_____________________________
Frank, 968 F.2d 1373, 1375 (1st Cir. 1992), injury sufficient
_____
to confer standing and that federal, not state, law governs
the authority of deputy United States Marshals to carry
weapons. Either of these conclusions, by itself, warrants
affirming the district court order of dismissal.
Affirmed.
_________
-2-