USCA1 Opinion
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION] [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
_________________________
No. 97-1801
HUMBERTO TORRES,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, INC., ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
_________________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Daniel R. Dominguez, U.S. District Judge] ___________________
_________________________
Before
Selya, Stahl and Lynch,
Circuit Judges. ______________
_________________________
Rosa M. Nogueras de Gonzalez for appellant. ____________________________
Carl Schuster, with whom Carlos R. Paula and Schuster Usera _____________ _______________ ______________
Aguilo & Santiago were on brief, for appellees. _________________
_________________________
December 10, 1997
_________________________
Per Curiam. We have carefully reviewed the record on Per Curiam. __________
appeal and fully considered the points advanced by the plaintiff
(both in his briefs and at oral argument). In the end, we find
these appeals to be so utterly lacking in merit that further
comment would be gratuitous. It suffices to say that the
district court was amply justified in granting the defendants'
motion for summary judgment for the reasons expressed in that
court's thoughtful rescript. See Torres v. Eli Lilly and Co., ___ ______ __________________
Civ. No. 95-1042 (DRD) (D.P.R. March 20, 1997) (unpublished). We
add only that the plaintiff's counsel is fortunate that the
district court did not choose to invoke the provisions of Fed. R.
Civ. P. 11 and/or 28 U.S.C. 1927.
We need go no further. The judgment is summarily
Affirmed. See 1st Cir. R. 27.1. Affirmed. ________ ___
2