Case ID: f-appx_157/html/0319-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Behzad A. SAMIMI, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. TYCO HEALTHCARE/LUDLOW/KENDALL-LUDLOW, TECHNICAL PRODUCTS, LTP, Defendant, Appellee.
    No. 04-2632.
    United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
    Dec. 1, 2005.
    Behzad A. Samimi, on brief, pro se.
    Peter O. Hughes and Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., on brief, for appellee.
    Before BOUDIN, Chief Judge, TORRUELLA and HOWARD, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff appeals from district court orders granting defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint and denying plaintiffs motion to reconsider the dismissal. Reviewing the dismissal of the complaint de novo in light of the record and the submissions on appeal, we see no error. Plaintiffs complaint was properly dismissed for failure to state any cognizable claim. There was no abuse of discretion in the denial of plaintiffs motion for reconsideration.

While plaintiff attempts to assert new claims and to present additional documents, because these matters were not brought to the attention of the district court, they cannot be considered on appeal. Evangelista v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 826 F.2d 136, 144 (1st Cir. 1987). To the extent plaintiff argues that he should be permitted to amend the complaint, he did not file a motion to amend the complaint in the district court, and, in any event, has offered no reason to believe that an amendment might cure the defects in the complaint. Plaintiffs allegation of judicial bias also was not raised in the district court and is meritless in any event.

Affirmed. See 1st Cir. R. 27(c). 
      
      . We do not discuss defendant’s separate contention that the appeal fails because-of plaintiff's flagrant failure to comply with the procedural requirements of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. A pro se party is obligated to comply with procedural rules. Ahmed v. Rosenblatt, 118 F.3d 886, 890 (1st Cir. 1997). Because plaintiff’s appeal lacks substantive merit, we elect to proceed on that basis.