Court Opinion

ID: 2964913
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:32:53.651118+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:02:08.733101
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 97-1156

                                    JOHN S. BARTH,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                                 VISX, INC., ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                       [Hon. Mark L. Wolf, U.S. District Judge]

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                               Selya, Boudin and Stahl,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            John S. Barth on brief pro se.
            _____________
            Maureen  A.  MacFarlane,  Lee  T.  Gesmer  and  Lucash,  Gesmer  &
            _______________________   _______________       __________________
        Updegrove, LLP, on brief for appellee.
        ______________

                                 ____________________

                                   August 26, 1997
                                 ____________________

                 Per  Curiam.  We  have reviewed the  parties' briefs and
                 ___________

            the record on appeal.   We affirm the  order of the  district

            court, dated  August 19,  1996, essentially  for the  reasons

            stated in the  district court's memorandum of  the same date.

            As for  the motion  to recuse, we  will assume  arguendo that
                                                            ________

            appellant intended to file the motion in the present case and

            mistakenly put an  earlier case number on the  motion but, in

            any event,  we affirm the  order of the district  court dated

            October 22, 1993, denying the motion for recusal, essentially

            for the reasons stated in the district court's order.

                 Affirmed.  Loc. R. 27.1.
                 _________

                                         -2-