
USCA1 Opinion

	




                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 97-1517                                 ROBERTO VIZCARRONDO,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.             BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PUERTO RICO, ET AL.,                                Defendants, Appellees.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO                    [Hon. Hector M. Laffitte, U.S. District Judge]                                              ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                               Selya, Boudin and Lynch,                                   Circuit Judges.                                   ______________                                 ____________________            Roberto Vizcarrondo on brief pro se.            ___________________            Gustavo  A.  Gelpi and  Feldstein,  Gelpi  & Gotay  on  brief  for            __________________      __________________________        appellee Board of Trustees of the University of Puerto Rico.                                 ____________________                                                                         December 8, 1997                                 ____________________                 Per  Curiam.    Pro se  plaintiff  Roberto  Vizcarrondo                  ___________     ___ __            appeals a district  court judgment that dismissed  his claims            for employment discrimination as time-barred.  This court has            thoroughly reviewed  the record  and the  parties' briefs  on            appeal.   We conclude that  the district court's  judgment is            correct.   Plaintiff's  allegations wholly  fail  to state  a            claim  for a  continuing violation.  See,  e.g., Morrison  v.                                                 ___   ____  ________            Carleton Woolen  Mills, Inc.,  108 F.3d  420,  443 (1st  Cir.            ____________________________            1997)); De Leon Otero v. Rubero, 820 F.2d 18, 19-20 (1st Cir.                    _____________    ______            1987); Collins v.  United Air Lines, Inc., 514  F.2d 594, 596                   _______     ______________________            (9th Cir. 1975)(refusal to reinstate employee does not render            initial violation a  continuing one).  Plaintiff  has further            failed   to  support   his  claim   for   equitable  tolling.            Accordingly,  the judgment of the district court is summarily            affirmed.  See Local Rule 27.1.1                                           1            ________   ___                                            ____________________               1As we conclude that the district court's dismissal was in               1            all respects correct  on the merits, we need  not resolve the            appellees' contention that this court lacks jurisdiction over            plaintiff's appeal.   See United  States v. Stoller,  78 F.3d                                  ___ ______________    _______            710 (1st Cir.), cert. dismissed, 117 S.Ct. 378 (1996).                              _____ _________                                         -2-
