Calderon De Jesus v. ESB ( 1994 )

USCA1 Opinion

          April 29, 1994        [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ___________________


          No. 93-2331

            


                            ALDALBERTO CALDERON DE JESUS,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                           ESB GENERAL BATTERY CORPORATION,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.


                                  __________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO


                  [Hon. Juan M. Perez-Gimenez, U.S. District Judge]
                                               ___________________

                                 ___________________

                                        Before

                             Torruella, Selya and Stahl,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ___________________

               Fernado   L.  Gallardo  and  Woods  &  Woods  on  brief  for
               ______________________       _______________
          appellant.
               Goldman Antonetti  Gordova & Axtmayer,  Vicente J. Antonetti
               _____________________________________   ____________________
          and Roberto A. Fernandez, on brief for appellee.
              ____________________



                                  __________________

                                  __________________


















                      Per Curiam.    Plaintiff claimed that his discharge
                      __________

            violated 1) 42 U.S.C.     1981, 2) 42 U.S.C.   1983, 3) Title

            VII, and  4) 29 L.P.R.A.    146.  Defendant moved  to dismiss

            the first two claims.  The district court granted the motion,

            but dismissed the  entire action.  On  appeal, plaintiff does

            not challenge the dismissal of the    1981 and   1983 claims,

            and  defendant   concedes  that  the  Title   VII  claim  was

            improperly dismissed.  Seeing no  basis for the dismissal  of

            the  Title VII claim,  we affirm the dismissal  of the   1981

            and    1983  claims, but  vacate the  dismissal of  the other

            claims  and  remand  for  further  proceedings,  including  a

            determination  by the  district  court  whether  to  exercise

            pendent jurisdiction over the state law claim.

                      Affirmed in part; vacated  and remanded in part; no

            costs.























                                         -2-