
USCA1 Opinion

	




          December 18, 1992     [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                              _________________________          No. 92-1863                              MILAGROS RODRIGUEZ LOPEZ,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                               WARNER-LAMBERT COMPANY,                                 Defendant, Appellee.                              _________________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO               [Hon. Juan M. Perez-Gimenez, Senior U.S. District Judge]                                            __________________________                              _________________________                                        Before                                Selya, Circuit Judge,                                       _____________                            Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge,                                    ____________________                                Stahl, Circuit Judge.                                       _____________                              _________________________               Luis R.  Mellado-Gonzalez and Mary  Cele Rivera-Martinez  on               _________________________     __________________________          brief for appellant.               Carl Schuster,  with  whom  McConnell  Valdes  Kelley  Sifre               _____________               ________________________________          Griggs & Ruiz-Suria was on brief, for appellee.          ___________________                              _________________________                              _________________________                    Per Curiam.  Having reviewed the record in this appeal,                    __________          we are fully satisfied  (a) that the plaintiff did  not establish          the  existence of  in personam  jurisdiction over  the defendant-                             __ ________          appellee Warner-Lambert Company, and  (b) that the district court          did  not  impermissibly  truncate  plaintiff's   opportunity  for          discovery  anent   jurisdictional  facts.     Hence,  plaintiff's          complaint against the appellee was properly dismissed for want of          personal jurisdiction.  That ends the matter.          Affirmed.          ________                                          2
