Court Opinion

ID: 2964296
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:23:35.448139+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:09:45.099517
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 95-2326

                              SHEIKH BASHIR AHMED, M.D.,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                           BERKSHIRE MEDICAL CENTER, INC.,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                 [Hon. Frank H. Freedman, Senior U.S. District Judge]
                                          __________________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Selya, Cyr and Boudin,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Dr. Sheikh Bashir Ahmed on brief pro se.
            _______________________
            John F. Rogers, Kevin  M. Kinne and Cain, Hibbard, Myers & Cook on
            ______________  _______________     ___________________________
        brief for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                   August 21, 1996
                                 ____________________

                 Per  Curiam.   In 1992,  plaintiff Sheikh  Bashir Ahmed,
                 ___________

            M.D. was discharged from his one-year term of employment as a

            resident in internal medicine at defendant Berkshire  Medical

            Center,   Inc.,  ostensibly  because  of  unsatisfactory  job

            performance.   Plaintiff  responded  by  filing  the  instant

            action in which he complained, inter alia, of national origin
                                           __________

            discrimination, denial of due process and breach of contract.

            Some ten  months  later, while  in  the midst  of  discovery,

            plaintiff moved for a preliminary injunction  reinstating him

            to the  residency position  pending final disposition  of his

            allegations.    From  the  district court's  denial  of  such

            request, plaintiff now appeals on an interlocutory basis.  He

            also  seeks to appeal from a district court order denying him

            leave to amend his complaint.

                 We perceive no error in the district court's decision to

            deny preliminary  injunctive relief.   The court  applied the

            proper  rule  of  law,  having  invoked  the  four-part  test

            governing  such  determinations.    See,  e.g.,  Narragansett
                                                ___   ____   ____________

            Indian  Tribe v.  Guilbert, 934  F.2d 4,  5 (1st  Cir. 1991).
            _____________     ________

            Accordingly,  "[t]he  only  real   question  is  whether  the

            district  court misused  [its] discretion  in evaluating  the

            circumstances and calibrating the scales."  Independent Oil &
                                                        _________________

            Chem. Workers of Quincy,  Inc. v. Procter & Gamble  Mfg. Co.,
            ______________________________    __________________________

            864 F.2d 927, 929 (1st Cir. 1988); accord, e.g., Conservation
                                               ______  ____  ____________

            Law Foundation, Inc. v.  Busey, 79 F.3d 1250, 1271  (1st Cir.
            ____________________     _____

                                         -2-

            1996) (taking note of the lower courts' "broad discretion" in

            this regard).   On the basis of the limited record before it,

            the  district   court  concluded  that   plaintiff  had   not

            demonstrated a probability of success on the merits, that  he

            had not established irreparable harm, and that the balance of

            equities  and the  public  interest both  tilted in  favor of

            denying  injunctive relief.   Having  reviewed the  record in

            full, and  having scrutinized  the court's findings  "under a

            relatively deferential glass," Procter  & Gamble, 864 F.2d at
                                           _________________

            929, we find no abuse of discretion.1
                                                1

                 Plaintiff insists that his  eventual success at trial is

            a foregone conclusion.  Yet much of the evidence  on which he

            relies is conclusory or otherwise inadmissible.  It turns out

            that  the parties'  respective evidentiary  submissions, when

            juxtaposed,  do  little  to  resolve the  underlying  factual

            disputes,   particularly   concerning   the   rationale   for

            plaintiff's termination.2   And the district  court cannot be
                                    2

            faulted   for  concluding  that,  until  the  allegations  of

            unsatisfactory   job   performance   have    been   resolved,

                                
            ____________________

               1   Given  our  disposition of  the  merits, we  need  not
               1
            address defendant's contention  that jurisdiction is  lacking
            under 28 U.S.C.    1292(a)(1)  to review this  ruling.   See,
                                                                     ___
            e.g., Narragansett Indian Tribe, 934 F.2d at 8 n.5.
            ____  _________________________

               2    With  respect to  his  due  process  claim, plaintiff
               2
            objects  that the  lower  court overlooked  an allegation  of
            state  action in his complaint.  That such an allegation does
            appear  therein does not disturb the  conclusion that, on the
            present record, plaintiff has not established a likelihood of
            success with respect to any of his claims. 

                                         -3-

            plaintiff's  reinstatement to a position "with responsibility

            for  life and death  decisions," Order at  8, might adversely

            affect the public interest.

                 Plaintiff's  appeal from  the  denial of  his motion  to

            amend falters on  a different basis: we  lack jurisdiction at

            this juncture to  review such an order.   It is well  settled

            that "denial of a request to amend a complaint is not usually

            appealable  as an  interlocutory  matter."   Kartell v.  Blue
                                                         _______     ____

            Shield of  Massachusetts, Inc., 687  F.2d 543, 551  (1st Cir.
            ______________________________

            1982);  accord, e.g.,  15A  Charles Wright,  Arthur Miller  &
                    ______  ____

            Edward Cooper,  Federal Practice  and Procedure    3914.1, at
                            _______________________________

            491 & n.7 (1992 & '96  Supp.) (citing cases).  Nothing in the

            instant  case calls for an exception to this rule.  Plaintiff

            can obtain  effective review  of the  court's ruling  in this

            regard on appeal from final judgment.

                 For these reasons,  the order denying  the motion for  a

            preliminary  injunction is  affirmed.   The  appeal from  the
                                        ________

            order  denying leave  to  amend the  complaint is  dismissed,
                                                               _________

            without prejudice, for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

                 So ordered.
                 __________

                                         -4-