USCA1 Opinion
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 97-1028
No. 97-1767
GERTRUDE DAVIS GOROD,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
____________________
APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Edward F. Harrington, U.S. District Judge] ___________________
____________________
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________
Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges. ______________
____________________
Gertrude Davis Gorod on briefs pro se. ____________________
Scott Harshbarger, Attorney General, and Jason Barshak, Assistant _________________ _____________
Attorney General, on briefs for appellees.
____________________
October 9, 1997
____________________
Per Curiam. Appellant Gertrude Gorod seeks to overturn ___________
a district court order that dismissed her complaint for
damages under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for the failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted. While this court
generally disfavors such dismissals absent advance notice and
an opportunity to amend, see, e.g., Wyatt v. City of Boston, ___ ____ _____ ______________
35 F.3d 13, 14-15 (1st Cir. 1994); Street v. Fair, 918 F.2d ______ ____
269, 272 (1st Cir. 1990)(per curiam), here it is clear that
appellant cannot prove any set of facts that would entitle
her to relief. Accordingly, the order of dismissal is
summarily affirmed. See Local Rule 27.1. Appellant also ________ ___
challenges an order denying her motion to default the
defendants. This order was issued after the judgment of
dismissal had entered and the case was docketed on appeal.
It is therefore a nullity. Appeal no. 97-1767 is
dismissed.1 1 _________
____________________
1We further note that the defendants were never in 1
default. The case was dismissed before their answer became
due.
-2-