
USCA1 Opinion

	




                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 97-1862                         ESTATE OF JENNIE E. PREVETT, ET AL.,                               Plaintiffs, Appellants,                                          v.                            BETTY ANN COHEN, DR., ET AL.,                                Defendants, Appellees.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                  [Hon. George A. O'Toole, Jr., U.S. District Judge]                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Torruella, Chief Judge,                                           ___________                           Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges.                                            ______________                                 ____________________            Peter D. Prevett on brief pro se.            ________________            Pamela S.  Gilman, Jennifer Ellis  Burke and Taylor, Duane, Barton            _________________  _____________________     _____________________        & Gilman, LLP on brief for appellee, Betty Ann Cohen, M.D.        _____________            Wilson D. Rogers, Jr., Wilson D. Rogers,  III and Dunn and Rogers,            _____________________  ______________________     ________________        P.C.  on brief  for appellees,  Richard NG,  M.D. and  St. Elizabeth's        ____        Medical Center of Boston, Inc.                                 ____________________                                  November 10, 1997                                 ____________________                 Per  Curiam.  Upon careful review of the parties' briefs                 ___________            and the appellate  record, we reject plaintiffs'  contentions            that the district court misinterpreted the  Emergency Medical            Treatment and Active Labor Act  (EMTALA), 42 U.S.C.   1395dd,            and  applied an  incorrect  standard under  Fed.  R. Civ.  P.            12(b)(6).    Substantially  for  the  reasons  given  in  the            district  court  order  dated  June  30,  1997,  the  amended            complaint failed to state  an EMTALA claim upon which  relief            could be granted, even though the complaint nominally invoked            EMTALA.  See Vickers v.  Nash General Hospital, Inc., 78 F.3d                     ___ _______     ___________________________            139, 143-44 (4th Cir. 1996).                  We   make  no  comment  on  the  merits  of  plaintiffs'            remaining state law claims.                 Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.                 ________   ___                                         -2-
