
USCA1 Opinion

	




          March 17, 1995        [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 94-1586                             ALFREDO HUALDE REDIN, ET AL.,                               Plaintiffs, Appellants,                                          v.                             FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK,                                 Defendant, Appellee.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO                    [Hon. Raymond L. Acosta, U.S. District Judge]                                             ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Torruella, Chief Judge,                                           ___________                          Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges.                                            ______________                                 ____________________            Paul Martin  Hualde,  Maria  Susana Costa  De Hualde  and  Alfredo            ___________________   ______________________________       _______        Hualde-Redin on brief pro se.        ____________            Juan Rafael Gonzalez Munoz on brief for appellee.            __________________________                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                      Per  Curiam.    We  have reviewed  the  record  and                      ___________            conclude  that plaintiffs' action  was properly dismissed for            the reasons  stated in the  magistrate's report.   We briefly            add a few comments.                      Plaintiffs are not entitled to the materials sought            under the FOIA because  the FOIA does not apply to  states or            Puerto Rico.  5 U.S.C.   551(1).  The district  court did not            have jurisdiction  over plaintiffs' action under  12 U.S.C.              632.  Diaz  v. Pan American Fed. Sav. &  Loan Ass'n, 635 F.2d                  ____     ____________________________________            30  (1st Cir. 1980).  Nor did plaintiffs adequately plead any            cause of  action under 42 U.S.C.    1985 or Puerto  Rico tort            law.    We  have  considered all  of  plaintiffs'  arguments,            including their contentions that  they were improperly denied            discovery  materials,  that  the district  court  abused  its            discretion  in  denying  plaintiffs'  motion to  amend  their            complaint, that Judge Pieras'  recusal should be effective as            of an earlier date, and that plaintiffs  were prejudiced when            the district  court adopted the magistrate's  report prior to            the date plaintiffs' objections  were due, and have  found no            merit to the arguments.                      Affirmed.                      ________
