Court Opinion

ID: 2963818
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:15:37.084986+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:39.740955
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

        December 28, 1995       [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                           
                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1683

                         TIMOTHY SCOTT BAILEY SMITH, ET AL.,

                               Plaintiffs, Appellants,

                                          v.

                                JANE SHEEHAN, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

                       [Hon. Gene Carter, U.S. District Judge]
                                          ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Selya, Stahl and Lynch,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Timothy Scott Bailey Smith on brief pro se.
            __________________________
            Andrew  Ketterer, Attorney  General, and Leanne  Robbin, Assistant
            ________________                         ______________
        Attorney General, on brief for appellees.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                      Per Curiam.  On cross-motions for summary judgment,
                      __________

            the district  court granted defendants' motion  on the merits

            and dismissed the case.   Plaintiffs main challenge on appeal

            is to the timing,  and manner of service, of  the defendants'

            motion.   We have carefully  reviewed the record  and briefs,

            and see no abuse of discretion in the magistrate's refusal to

            compel defendants first to file an answer.  See Fed. R.  Civ.
                                                        ___

            P.  56(b).  There was also no  prejudice to the plaintiffs in

            the  few days' delay caused by the defendants' mailing of the

            motion to the wrong address. 

                      Plaintiffs'  constitutional  challenges  to  events

            that  occurred in  the state  proceedings after  the district

            court  entered its judgment in  this case are  not properly a

            subject  of this appeal.   This court does  not have original

            jurisdiction  to  entertain  such  complaints.     Seeing  no

            exceptional   reason   to   consider  plaintiffs'   remaining

            arguments  (one made for the first time on appeal, the others

            without  developed  argumentation),  the  judgment  below  is

            affirmed.
            ________

                                         -2-