
USCA1 Opinion

	




                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 96-1011                                  LORRAINE L. SMITH,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                            COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS,                       MASSACHUSETTS REHABILITATION COMMISSION,                                 Defendant, Appellee.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                     [Hon. Joseph L. Tauro, U.S. District Judge]                                            ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Selya, Cyr, and Boudin,                                   Circuit Judges.                                   ______________                                 ____________________            Lorraine L. Smith on brief pro se.            _________________            Scott  Harshbarger,   Attorney  General,  and  Dorothy   Anderson,            __________________                             __________________        Assistant Attorney General, on brief for appellee.                                 ____________________                                   August 23, 1996                                 ____________________                      Per Curiam.   Plaintiff Lorraine  L. Smith  appeals                      __________            pro se  from a summary judgment in favor of her employer, the            ___ __            Massachusetts  Rehabilitation  Commission.     Smith  alleged            discrimination  on the basis of  gender in the  denial of her            application  for a  promotion to  one or  both of  two newly-            created supervisory positions.                        Reviewing the dismissal de  novo, and after careful                                              __  ____            consideration of  the parties' arguments on  appeal, we agree            with  the district court's  analysis and affirm substantially            for the reasons set forth in its thorough memorandum opinion.                      The  judgment  is  affirmed.   See  Loc.  R.  27.1.                                         ________    ___            Appellant's motion for reconsideration  of the order  denying            her motion to "admit new evidence on appeal" is denied.                                                            ______                                         -2-
