
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                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR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
