Court Opinion

ID: 2964388
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:24:57.123073+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:21:07.875544
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          October 10, 1996      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 96-1693

                                 NORMAN E. DICKINSON,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                                WESLEY RIDLON, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

                     [Hon. Morton A. Brody, U.S. District Judge]
                                            ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                           Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________

                                 ____________________

            Norman E. Dickinson on brief pro se.
            ___________________
            Monaghan, Leahy, Hochadel, & Libby, William  R. Fisher, and Ivy L.
            __________________________________  __________________      ______
        Frignoca on brief for appellees.
        ________

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                      Per  Curiam.    The  magistrate-judge's  denial  of
                      ___________

            appellant's motion to postpone the final  pretrial conference

            was  tantamount to  an order  to appear  at that  conference.

            Appellant thereafter  was not justified in  failing to appear

            regardless  whether appellant subjectively  felt prepared for

            the  conference or not.    In these  circumstances, the court

            did not abuse  its discretion when appellant failed to attend

            the  April  8,  1996  conference.    That appellant  was  not

            expressly  advised that  failure  to appear  could result  in

            dismissal does not require a different result.  Any belief on

            appellant's  part that he could flout the scheduling order in

            the manner he did was completely unjustified.

                      Affirmed.  Loc. R. 27.1.
                      ________

                                         -2-