
USCA1 Opinion

	




                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 96-1056                                  KATHERINE FURTADO,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                            COMMONWEALTH ELECTRIC, ET AL.,                                Defendants, Appellees.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                   [Hon. Reginald C. Lindsay, U.S. District Judge]                                              ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Torruella, Chief Judge,                                           ___________                          Boudin and Lynch, Circuit Judges.                                            ______________                                 ____________________            Katherine Furtado on brief pro se.            _________________            David S. Rubin, N. Jay Shepherd, Kearns & Rubin, P.C. and  Michael            ______________  _______________  ____________________      _______        Hartnett  on  brief  for  appellees   Commonwealth  Electric  Company,        ________        Commonwealth  Energy System,  Douglas B.  Miller,  Russell D.  Wright,        Kevin Roberts, and Gerald Bowden.            Robert D. Manning, Bryan C. Decker  and Angoff, Goldman,  Manning,            _________________  _______________      __________________________        Pyle,  & Wanger  P.C. on  brief for  appellees Brotherhood  of Utility        _____________________        Workers  of  New  England,  Local  333,  Andrew  Woodacre  and  Philip        Trombley.                                 ____________________                                   August 14, 1996                                 ____________________                      Per Curiam.   Upon de novo review we agree with the                      __________         __ ____            district court's decision to  dismiss the complaint  because,            even  with plaintiff's  amendments,  it  fails to  articulate            facts sufficient to sustain a cognizable claim.  The judgment            is affirmed and  modified to reflect  that the state  claims,               ________      ________            and any  unexhausted  claims within  the  exclusive  original            jurisdiction  of  an  administrative  agency,  are  dismissed            without prejudice.                      Affirmed as modified.                      ________    ________
