
USCA1 Opinion

	




        January 18, 1996        [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                                            ____________________        No. 95-1735                                  JENNIFER GOLDSTEIN,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                             HARVARD UNIVERSITY, ET AL.,                                Defendants, Appellees.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                     [Hon. Nancy J. Gertner, U.S. District Judge]                                             ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Torruella, Chief Judge,                                           ___________                           Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges.                                            ______________                                 ____________________            Jennifer Goldstein on brief pro se.            __________________            Diane  E.   Lopez,  Office   of  the   General  Counsel,   Harvard            _________________        University, on brief for appellees.                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                      Per Curiam.  Plaintiff/appellant Jennifer Goldstein                      __________            appeals  from  a district  court  order  dismissing her  258-            paragraph complaint without prejudice because of its  failure            to conform to  the concise pleading  requirements of Fed.  R.            Civ.  P.  Rule  8(a)(2).   We  have  carefully  reviewed  the            complaint and the parties' briefs.  We affirm essentially for            the reasons stated by the district court.  The district court            order does not, on its face, preclude an eventual decision on            the merits,  and appellant makes no  meaningful argument that            she  is foreclosed  from pursuing  her claims.   We  add that            appellant's allegation of judicial bias was not raised below,            and, in  any event, is  meritless.  See Brody  v. President &                                                ___ _____     ___________            Fellows of Harvard College,  664 F.2d 10, 11 (1st  Cir. 1981)            __________________________            (noting that all judges  come to the bench with  a background            of  experiences,  associations and  viewpoints and  that this            background  is  seldom  sufficient  in itself  to  provide  a            reasonable basis  for recusal),  cert. denied, 455  U.S. 1027                                             ____________            (1982).  The request to seal the dismissal order is denied.                      Affirmed.                      ________                                         -2-
