Court Opinion

ID: 2965027
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:34:20.620221+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:08.201478
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 97-1751

                                     ALLAN LEWIS,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                  TEXTRON AUTOMOTIVE INTERIORS AND JAMES D. HOUSTON,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

                    [Hon. James R. Muirhead, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                 Lynch, Circuit Judge,
                                        _____________
                     Aldrich and Campbell, Senior Circuit Judges.
                                           _____________________

                                 ____________________

            Allan Lewis on brief pro se.
            ___________
            Don A. Banta, Ann L. Crane and Banta, Cox & Hennessy on brief  for
            ____________  ____________     _____________________
        appellees.

                                 ____________________
              
                                     
                                  December 15, 1997
                                 ____________________

                 Per Curiam.   We have carefully reviewed the  briefs and
                 __________

            record on  appeal and  affirm the judgment  below.   The only

            issue the appellant argues in his brief, thus the only matter

            before us,1 is whether there was a genuine issue that a plant
                      1

            closing caused layoffs  triggering the Worker  Adjustment and

            Retraining  Notification Act.  29  U.S.C.    2101-2109.  When
                                                             _

            the appellee presented evidence that a plant  closing did not

            cause the layoffs of  which the appellant complained, it  was

            incumbent  upon  the appellant  to adduce  contrary evidence.

            Celotex Corporation v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1989).  He
            ___________________    _______

            did not do so.2  
                          2

                 Affirmed.  Loc. R. 27.1.
                 ________

                                
            ____________________

               1 See United States v.  Zannino, 895 F.2d 1, 17 (1st  Cir.
               1 ___ _____________     _______
            1990). 

               2 Accordingly, appellant's motions for attorney's fees and
               2
            pre-argument conference are also denied.  

                                         -2-