
USCA1 Opinion

	




                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                              _________________________          No. 94-1761                                MADELEINE O. ROBINSON,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                           ROOSEVELT BENTON, ETC., ET AL.,                                Defendants, Appellees.                              _________________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND                [Hon. Raymond J. Pettine, Senior U.S. District Judge]                                          __________________________                              _________________________                                        Before                                Boudin, Circuit Judge,                                        _____________                            Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge,                                    ____________________                              and Stahl, Circuit Judge.                                         _____________                              _________________________               David J. Barend,  with whom Barend, Heartquist  & Hurley was               _______________             ____________________________          on brief, for appellant.               Patricia K. Rocha, with whom Adler, Pollock & Sheehan was on               _________________            ________________________          brief, for appellees.                              _________________________                               _______________________                    Per Curiam.   Having  carefully reviewed the  record in                    Per Curiam.                    __________          this case,  along with  the arguments  contained in  the parties'          briefs,  we are  fully  persuaded that  this  appeal presents  no          substantial question of law or fact.  Consequently, we affirm the          judgment  below for substantially  the reasons  set forth  in the          Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Lovegreen dated May          20, 1994  (adopted and approved by the district court on June 24,          1994, following de novo review).                          __ ____          Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. R. 27.1.          ________   ___                                          2
