USCA1 Opinion

June 24, 1996

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

____________________

No. 95-2230

SIGFRIDO TORRES LAZARINI,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant, Appellee.

____________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

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

__________________________

____________________

Before

Selya, Cyr and Boudin,

Circuit Judges.
______________

____________________

Rafael A. Oliveras Lopez De Victoria on brief for appellant.

____________________________________
Guillermo Gil, United
_____________

States Attorney, and Fidel A. Sevillano

___________________

Rio, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.

___

____________________

____________________

Per Curiam.
__________

After careful review of the briefs and

the record, we conclude that there is no substantial question

presented

in this

appropriate.

plaintiff's

appeal

The

and that

summary disposition

district court correctly

claim

was

time-barred,

is

determined that

and we

add

only

the

following comments.

Although plaintiff's 1990 claim

may have been timely as

to those few incidents occurring in 1989

did

not identify any of

cause of significant

this appeal,

we

actionable torts

those more recent

harm.

do not

and 1990, plaintiff

Accordingly,

consider

them to

incidents as the

in the context

be

of

individually

that should survive the government's motion

to dismiss.

In

based

any case, plaintiff does not appear to state a claim

on

any

individual

incidents; instead,

as

we

read

plaintiff's complaint and other filings, his underlying claim

is one

from

of

institutional discrimination

time to time since

Veterans

2401(b),

least

1953 in various

Administration personnel.

timely under

the

if the

one

Federal

limitations

Coleman, 455
_______

943 F.2d 104,

Tort

claim alleged

tortious

action

period.

Such

Claims

itself

actions by various

a claim

Act,

a "continuing

occurred within

28

might be

U.S.C.

tort" and

the

v.

Johnson v. Rodriguez,
_______
_________

Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 502

_____________

-2-

at

statutory

See, e.g., Havens Realty Corp.

__________ _____________________

U.S. 363, 380-81 (1982);

108 (1st

manifesting

U.S.

1063

(1992);

(D.C.

Page v.
____

United States,
_____________

729 F.2d

818, 818-19

Cir. 1984); Gross v. United States, 676 F.2d 295, 299_____

_____________

300 (8th Cir. 1982).

We agree with the

cannot

be

district court that plaintiff's claim

characterized as

plaintiff made

no cognizable

"continuing

showing of any

tort," in

that

relation among

the various acts complained of, even assuming that those acts

were tortious.

improbable

Plaintiff's own unsupported speculation

inference

treatment and

about

benefits was

the

VA's "plan"

not sufficient to

government's motion for summary judgment.

Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.,

___________________________

1989)

(mere

vague

discrimination

are

Reynolds Tobacco Co.,

______________________

(similar).

events

896

F.2d

5,

him

withstand the

182-83 (1st Cir.

concerning

sufficient);

deny

See Mack v. Great

___ ____
_____

871 F.2d 179,

references

not

to

and

policy

Medina-Munoz
____________

(1st

Cir.

of

v. R.J.
____

1990)

Therefore, plaintiff's complaint based on all the

stretching back over

more than

forty years

was not

timely filed, and the district court properly granted summary

judgment for the government.

Affirmed.

See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.

________

___

-3-