
USCA1 Opinion

	




                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 96-2012                                   DOMONIC SANTINI,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                        HONORABLE GILBERTO GIERBOLINI, ET AL.,                                Defendants, Appellees.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO                   [Hon. Salvador E. Casellas, U.S. District Judge]                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Torruella, Chief Judge,                                           ___________                           Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges.                                            ______________                                 ____________________            Domonic Santini on brief pro se.            _______________            Guillermo Gil, United  States Attorney, Jorge E. Vega-Pacheco  and            _____________                           _____________________        Nelson  Perez-Sosa, Assistant  United  States Attorneys,  and Jose  A.        __________________                                            ________        Quilles-Espinosa, Senior Litigation Counsel, on brief for appellees.        ________________                                 ____________________                                     June 4, 1997                                 ____________________                      Per Curiam.   After carefully reviewing the  record                      __________            and  the parties' briefs, we hold that the district court did            not  abuse  its  discretion  in  sua  sponte  dismissing  the                                             ___  ______            complaint of appellant Domonic Santini.  We add that  nothing            in appellant's brief persuades us  that allowing him to amend            the  complaint would be anything but futile.  See Shockley v.                                                          ___ ________            Jones,  823 F.2d 1068, 1072-73 (7th Cir. 1987).  We therefore            _____            affirm the judgment of the district court essentially for the            ______            reasons  stated   in  its  Opinion  and   Order,  Santini  v.                                                              _______            Gierbolini, 937 F.Supp. 130 (D.P.R. 1996).            __________                      Affirmed.                      ________                                         -2-
