Castro v. New York City Board

U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Castro v. New York City Board

Opinion

USCA1 Opinion




August 4, 1992 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]










___________________


No. 92-1357


ELIGIO CASTRO,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

NEW YORK CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION, ET AL.,

Defendants, Appellees.
_________________

No. 92-1482

ELIGIO CASTRO,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

NEW YORK CITY BOARD
OF EDUCATION, ET AL.,

Defendants, Appellees.



__________________

APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

[Hon. Jaime Pieras, Jr., U.S. District Judge]
___________________

___________________

Before

Breyer, Chief Judge,
___________
Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
____________________
and Cyr, Circuit Judge.
_____________










___________________

Eligio Castro on brief pro se.
_____________
Robert Abrams, Attorney General of the State of New York,
_____________
and Jeffrey I. Slonim, Assistant Attorney General, on brief for
_________________
appellees New York City Board of Education, et al.
O. Peter Sherwood, Corporation Counsel of the City of New
_________________
York, Stephen J. McGrath, Peter J. Cahill and Kristin M. Helmers
__________________ _______________ __________________
on brief for appellee New York City Board of Education.
Daniel Lopez-Romo, United States Attorney, and Rebecca
__________________ _______
Vargas-Vera, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for
___________
appellee Secretary of the United States Department of Education.



__________________

__________________
























































Per Curiam. We agree with the district court's February
__________

11, 1992 opinion and affirm the judgment of dismissal

substantially for the reasons stated by the district court.

Since the action was properly dismissed, the district

court did not err in denying injunctive relief.

Consequently, the March 19, 1992 order denying injunctive

relief is summarily affirmed.

Appellant's motion to perfect diversity jurisdiction and

other requests are denied.

Because these appeals are frivolous, double costs are

awarded to appellees.

Affirmed.
________





























-3-







Reference

Status
Published