Court Opinion

ID: 2961884
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 20:49:23.427355+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:14.752184
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          May 25, 1993                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 92-2409                                    JAMES M. MOONEY,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                      UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, ETC.,                                 Defendant, Appellee.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE                [Hon. Martin F. Loughlin, Senior U.S. District Judge]                                          __________________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                               Torruella, Cyr and Stahl,                                   Circuit Judges.                                   ______________                                 ____________________            James M. Mooney on brief pro se.            _______________            Peter E. Papps, Acting United  States Attorney, and  Gretchen Leah            ______________                                       _____________        Witt,  Assistant  United  States   Attorney,  on  Motion  for  Summary        ____        Disposition, for appellee.                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                      Per  Curiam.    We  have  reviewed  the  record and  the                      ___________        parties'  submissions  and  are  persuaded  that  the  district  court        properly dismissed the instant civil action for lack of subject matter        jurisdiction.  Moreover,  where appellant's complaint  was not  timely        filed, transfer to  the Federal Circuit  was not  in the interests  of        justice under  28 U.S.C.    1631.   Accordingly, the  judgment of  the        district court is  affirmed.  Appellant's  multiple objections to  our                           ________        orders  denying his motions  for oral argument  and appellant's motion        for authentication are denied.                               ______