
USCA1 Opinion

	




                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 96-1815                                   DEBRA L. MORGAN,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                       BOSTON REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, ET AL.,                                Defendants, Appellees.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                      [Hon. Patti B. Saris, U.S. District Judge]                                            ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                 Cyr, Stahl and Lynch,                                   Circuit Judges.                                   ______________                                 ____________________            Debra L. Morgan on brief pro se.            _______________            Rebecca J. Wilson, William  V. Hoch and Peabody & Arnold on  brief            _________________  ________________     ________________        for appellees.                                 ____________________                                    March 19, 1997                                 ____________________                      Per  Curiam.     Even assuming  appellant Debra  L.                      ___________            Morgan held a property interest in her position of employment            with the Boston Redevelopment  Authority, a careful review of            the  record and  the parties' briefs  on appeal  satisfies us            that the district court correctly ruled that Morgan failed to            demonstrate a trialworthy issue  as to whether the defendants            acted  arbitrarily  and   capriciously  in  terminating   her            employment.  We therefore affirm the judgment of the district            court in  this regard for  essentially the reasons  stated in            its Memorandum and Order, dated May 22, 1996.                      Affirmed.  See Local Rule 27.1.                      ________   ___                                         -2-
