USCA1 Opinion

       [NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]

                 United States Court of Appeals

                     For the First Circuit











No. 98-2355



                          JOAN OLIVERI,



                      Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                v.



                         PAUL A. GARGANO,



                       Defendant, Appellee.







           APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS



           [Hon. Robert E. Keeton, U.S. District Judge]







                              Before



                     Boudin, Circuit Judge,

                Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,

                   and Stahl, Circuit Judge. 

                                

                                

                                

                                

     Joan Oliveri on brief pro se.

     Nancy L. Hall and Gargano & Associates, P.C. on brief for

appellee.











September 27, 1999







                                

                                





            Per Curiam. Pro se appellant Joan Oliveri filed a

  civil action in the district court, claiming that her

  employment had been terminated in violation of the Americans

  with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C.  12101 et seq.  She appeals

  from the court's grant of judgment as a matter of law in favor

  of appellee Paul A. Gargano.  We affirm for the following

  reasons.

            The district court granted judgment for the defendant

  after a bench trial at which Oliveri testified and submitted

  documents into evidence.  On the basis of her testimony and the

  documentary evidence, the court concluded that she had filed

  her administrative claim against Gargano & Associates, P.C., a

  professional corporation, as her employer.  Ruling that the

  distinction between Gargano, the individual, and the

  professional corporation bearing his name applied even in the

  employment discrimination context, the court concluded that

  Oliveri could not bring the instant suit against Gargano

  because she had not filed her administrative charge against

  him.  In so doing, the court adhered to the general rule that

  plaintiffs asserting employment discrimination claims in a

  civil action must previously have pursued an administrative

  charge against the defendant named in the lawsuit.  See Virgo

  v. Riviera Beach Assoc., Ltd., 30 F.3d 1350, 1358-59 (11th Cir.

  1994) (stating the general rule).  

            On appeal, the appellant presents a single, very

  narrow claim.  She contends that she filed her administrative

  charge against Gargano individually, but that, without her

  knowledge, the investigating agency processed it as a charge

  against the corporation.  Significantly, she does not try to

  show that, on the record before it, the court's contrary

  factual finding that she named only the law firm was clearly

  erroneous, and the trial record provides an adequate basis for

  that finding.  Nor does she challenge the validity of the

  court's legal rulings, effectively waiving her right to

  appellate review.  See Whyte v. Connecticut Mutual Life Ins.

  Co., 818 F.2d 1005, 1011 n.20 (1st Cir. 1987) (indicating that

  an appellate court will not address issues not raised by the

  parties except in instances where a gross miscarriage of

  justice would result).

            As for her contention that she filed administrative

  charges against Gargano, this appears to be a new claim which

  was not argued to the district court.  For supporting evidence

  Oliveri relies on a complaint intake form which she filled out

  before filing her administrative complaint and before bringing

  the instant suit.  She did not submit the form to the district

  court at trial or in any post-trial motion to amend or alter

  judgment, although she knew of its existence.  According to

  established principles, this court will not review matters not

  previously presented to the district court.  See United States

  v. Ocasio-Rivera, 991 F.2d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 1993) ("It is a

  bedrock principle in this circuit that issues must be squarely

  raised in the district court if they are to be preserved for

  appeal.") (citations omitted).  Under the circumstances, we

  affirm the judgment below.

            Affirmed.