Court Opinion

ID: 2965491
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:41:09.762479+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:43:07.124412
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION--NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
                 United States Court of Appeals
                     For the First Circuit

No. 98-1411

                        JOSEPH F. DESMOND,

                      Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                v.

       MASSACHUSETTS BAY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, ET AL.,

                      Defendants, Appellees.

           APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

           [Hon. Robert E. Keeton, U.S. District Judge]

                              Before

                      Selya, Circuit Judge,
                Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
                   and Lynch, Circuit Judge.
                                

     John F. Desmond on brief pro se.
     Jonathan P. Feltner, First Assistant General Counsel-Trials,
and Edward P. Harrington, Assistant General Counsel, MBTA Law
Department, on brief for appellees Massachusetts Bay Transportation
Authority, Patrick J. Moynihan, General Manager, James Clark,
Robert Powers, Bob Norton, Kevin Shorter and J. Floyd.

OCTOBER 23, 1998

            Per Curiam.  The complaint was dismissed as a
    sanction for (1) plaintiff's failure to attend his deposition
    twice, despite proper notice and a court order warning of
    sanctions in the event of a second failure, and (2) plaintiff's
    failure to appear or attend a pretrial conference by telephone,
    despite the grant of his request to attend the conference by
    telephone.    
              Having carefully reviewed the judgment below in light
    of the entire record and the parties' arguments on appeal, we
    find no abuse of discretion in the dismissal.  Since the
    complaint was properly dismissed for abuses constituting a
    failure to prosecute, plaintiff's challenges to the district
    court's interlocutory orders are not properly before us. 
    John's Insulation, Inc. v. L. Addison & Assocs., Inc., --- F.3d
    ---, 1998 WL 568602 *5-*8  (1st Cir. Sept. 11, 1998).  In any
    event, there was no prejudicial error in the court's careful
    interlocutory rulings on each of plaintiff's largely
    incomprehensible motions.
             Plaintiff's appellate motions, (1) "To Quash All
  Warrants, Release Copies Thereof and Award Damages in the
  Amount of 5.5 Million Dollars Based on Judicial Fraud . . . ,"
  and (2) "That All Documents Being Witheld, and or Edited Be
  Released In Full . . . ," seemingly attempt to insinuate new
  facts and issues which are beyond the scope of this appeal. 
            The judgment is affirmed and all motions are denied.