Court Opinion

ID: 2964131
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:21:02.586899+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:10:53.421958
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          May 21, 1996

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 95-2134

                                  A.G. EDWARDS, JR.,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                     NEW ENGLAND TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY
                                AND NYNEX CORPORATION,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                     [Hon. Nancy J. Gertner, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                 Cyr, Circuit Judge,
                                      _____________
                           Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                     ____________________
                              and Lynch, Circuit Judge.
                                         _____________

                                 ____________________

            A.G. Edwards, Jr. on brief pro se.
            _________________
            Julie J. Bernard on brief for appellees.
            ________________

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                      Per Curiam.   Plaintiff A.G.  Edwards, Jr.  appeals
                      __________

            from  the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor

            of  defendants New  England Telephone  and Telegraph  Co. and

            NYNEX Corp.  We affirm the judgment of the district court for

            the reasons  stated in  the court's Memorandum  and Decision.

            We add only the following comments:

                      1.   It is plain  that the district court liberally

            construed plaintiff's pleadings as  required by cases such as

            Haines  v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972).  Indeed, for purposes
            ______     ______

            of  its analysis on the merits, it gave plaintiff the benefit

            of  the  doubt  and  accepted  as  true  his  assertion  that

            defendants  owned  the telephones  in  question.   The  court

            nonetheless  determined  that,  aside  from  speculation  and

            conjecture, plaintiff  had provided no facts  tending to show
                                                   _____

            that  the telephones  were defectively  designed or  that the

            sounds  the  telephones  emitted  caused  his  hearing  loss.

            Despite his pro se status,  plaintiff still was obligated  to

            comply with what the substantive law required.  See Eagle Eye
                                                            ___ _________

            Fishing Corp. v.  United States  Dep't of  Commerce, 20  F.3d
            _____________     _________________________________

            503,  506  (1st  Cir.  1994) ("[t]he  Constitution  does  not

            require judges . . . to take up the slack when a party elects

            to represent himself").

                      2.   We also see nothing amiss with the process the

            district court  employed in deciding  defendants' motion  for

            summary  judgment.  While the record must be construed in the

                                         -2-

            non-movant's  favor,  that party  still must  submit specific
                                                                 ________

            facts  sufficient to  show a  real  dispute.   Griggs-Ryan v.
            _____                                          ___________

            Smith,  904 F.2d  112, 115  (1st Cir.  1990).   "[C]onclusory
            _____

            responses unsupported by evidence  . . . will [not]  serve to

            defeat a  properly focused  Rule 56  motion."   Id. (citation
                                                            ___

            omitted)  (non-movant may  not  simply rest  upon his  or her

            pleadings).   As  the  district court  found, plaintiff  only

            offered his conclusions without specifying  any corroborative

            facts.   Based on  this state of  affairs, a  hearing was not

            mandated.  Cf.  Posadas de  Puerto Rico, Inc.  v. Radin,  856
                       ___  _____________________________     _____

            F.2d 399,  400-01  (1st  Cir.  1988)  (where  the  facts  are

            undisputed, a hearing is not  necessary).  As for plaintiff's

            request for more time to substantiate his claims, he does not

            indicate  exactly  what  facts  additional   discovery  would

            reveal.    Thus,  the  district  court  did  not   abuse  its

            discretion when it implicitly denied this entreaty.  See Bank
                                                                 ___ ____

            One Texas, N.A.  v. A. J. Warehouse,  Inc., 968 F.2d 94,  100
            _______________     ______________________

            (1st Cir.  1992) (a district court may grant summary judgment

            despite an  opposing party's  assertion that discovery  would

            lead  to more facts where the opposing party does not specify

            the facts that discovery would reveal).

                      3.   The district court refused to  enter a default

            judgment  against defendants or  summarily deny  their motion

            for  summary judgment  for failing  to confer  with plaintiff

            prior to filing their motion for summary judgment.  See L.R.,
                                                                ___

                                         -3-

            D.Mass. 7.1(A)(2).  The parties had attended a non-productive

            settlement conference about a year and a half after plaintiff

            began  the  action.   The  defendants  filed the  motion  for

            summary  judgment  just   six  weeks  after   the  settlement

            conference.   Because plaintiff  was not  likely to  change a

            position he had held  for over a year in the  six-week period

            after  the abortive  conference, the  district court  did not

            abuse its  discretion in  not imposing such  severe sanctions

            against defendants.  See Gerakaris v. Champagne, 913 F. Supp.
                                 ___ _________    _________

            646,  651  (D. Mass.  1996)  (neglecting to  confer  prior to

            filing  a motion to dismiss, which was certain to be opposed,

            does not warrant the summary denial of the motion).

                      Affirmed.
                      ________

                                         -4-