Gorod v. Commonwealth of MA

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[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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-