USCA1 Opinion
January 18, 1996 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 95-1735
JENNIFER GOLDSTEIN,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
HARVARD UNIVERSITY, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Nancy J. Gertner, U.S. District Judge] ___________________
____________________
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________
Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges. ______________
____________________
Jennifer Goldstein on brief pro se. __________________
Diane E. Lopez, Office of the General Counsel, Harvard _________________
University, on brief for appellees.
____________________
____________________
Per Curiam. Plaintiff/appellant Jennifer Goldstein __________
appeals from a district court order dismissing her 258-
paragraph complaint without prejudice because of its failure
to conform to the concise pleading requirements of Fed. R.
Civ. P. Rule 8(a)(2). We have carefully reviewed the
complaint and the parties' briefs. We affirm essentially for
the reasons stated by the district court. The district court
order does not, on its face, preclude an eventual decision on
the merits, and appellant makes no meaningful argument that
she is foreclosed from pursuing her claims. We add that
appellant's allegation of judicial bias was not raised below,
and, in any event, is meritless. See Brody v. President & ___ _____ ___________
Fellows of Harvard College, 664 F.2d 10, 11 (1st Cir. 1981) __________________________
(noting that all judges come to the bench with a background
of experiences, associations and viewpoints and that this
background is seldom sufficient in itself to provide a
reasonable basis for recusal), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1027 ____________
(1982). The request to seal the dismissal order is denied.
Affirmed. ________
-2-