
USCA1 Opinion

	




          January 30, 1995      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 94-1079                                   WILLIAM MCDONALD,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                   DEBRA A. PERKINS, AND VNA, MILFORD-WHITINSVILLE,                                Defendants, Appellees.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                   [Hon. Nathaniel M. Gorton, U.S. District Judge]                                              ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Torruella, Chief Judge,                                           ___________                           Cyr and Boudin, Circuit Judges.                                           ______________                                 ____________________            William McDonald, pro se.            ________________            Leslie  Lockard  and Gaffin  &  Krattenmaker,  P.C. on  brief  for            _______________      ______________________________        appellee Visiting Nurse Association of the Greater Milford-Northbridge        Area.            Alexandra B.  Harvey and Taylor, Anderson  & Travers  on brief for            ____________________     ___________________________        appellee Debra A. Perkins.                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                      Per  Curiam.   We  have  reviewed  the decision  to                      ___________            dismiss  the   complaint   de  novo,   Negron-Gaztambide   v.                                                   _________________            Hernandez-Torres,  35  F.3d  25,  27  (1st  Cir.  1994),  and            ________________            conclude, accepting the complaint's allegations as true, that            they are insufficient  to state a cause of action as a matter            of law  under any theory  presented.   Vartanian v.  Monsanto                                                   _________     ________            Co.,  14 F.3d  697, 700  (1st Cir.  1994).   Consequently, we            ___            affirm the  decision of the district  court for substantially            the reasons  stated in its  memorandum and order  of December            23, 1993.                      Affirmed.                      ________
