Court Opinion

ID: 2963949
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:17:52.509215+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:10:43.440211
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          February 16, 1996     [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                                     
                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1724

                                   DOMENIC CINELLI,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                     JAMES C. PETRELLA, DAVID NOURY AND JOHN DOE,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                                     
                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

                  [Hon. Robert W. Lovegreen, U.S. Magistrate Judge]
                                             _____________________

                                                     
                                 ____________________

                               Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                          ___________

                                 Cyr, Circuit Judge,
                                      _____________

                         and Skinner,* Senior District Judge.
                                       _____________________

                                                     
                                 ____________________

             Vincent A. Indeglia, with whom Michael J. Lepizzera was on brief
             ___________________            ____________________
        for appellant.
             David J. Gentile for appellees. 
             ________________

                                                     
                                 ____________________

                                                     
                                 ____________________

                            
        ____________________

             *Of the District of Massachusetts, sitting by designation.

                    Per Curiam.  Pro se plaintiff Domenic Cinelli, a former
                    __________   ___ __

          inmate at  the Adult Correctional Institution  in Cranston, Rhode

          Island,  brought this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.  

          1983,  alleging that two prison  guards, James Petrella and David

          Noury, entered his cell and beat  him without cause.  In addition

          to the    1983  claim, the  complaint  alleged pendent  state-law

          claims  for  assault,  battery,  and  intentional  infliction  of

          emotional distress.  Since shortly after the complaint was filed,

          Cinelli has been ably represented by counsel. 

                    The parties consented  to proceed  before a  magistrate

          judge,  see 28 U.S.C.    636(c); Fed.  R. Civ. P.  73, and waived
                  ___

          jury trial.  After  a bench trial, the magistrate  judge disposed

          of all claims  on the  merits, and judgment  was entered for  the

          defendants.  Cinelli filed a timely motion for new trial pursuant

          to Fed. R. Civ.  P. 59(a)(2).  Following hearing,  the magistrate

          judge  denied the  motion  for new  trial.   On  appeal,  Cinelli

          challenges the  denial of the motion for new trial as an abuse of

          discretion.  See Wells Real  Estate, Inc.  v. Greater  Lowell Bd.
                       ___ ________________________     ___________________

          of Realtors, 850 F.2d  803, 810-11 (1st Cir.), cert.  denied, 488
          ___________                                    _____  ______

          U.S.  955  (1988).   After careful  review,  we affirm  the well-

          reasoned decision of the magistrate judge. 

                    Cinelli first argues that the magistrate judge erred in

          failing to consider an equal protection claim under the Fifth and

          Fourteenth  Amendments to  the United  States Constitution.   The

          magistrate judge determined that Cinelli neither pleaded, argued,

          nor  established  an  equal   protection  claim.    The  original

                                          2

          complaint,  which was never amended,  simply cited to    1983 and

          alleged that the defendants had deprived him of "a constitutional

          right,  privilege, or  immunity."   Cf.  Ayala Serrano  v. Lebron
                                              ___  _____________     ______

          Gonzalez,  909 F.2d 8, 10-12 (1st Cir. 1990) (counsel amended pro
          ________                                                      ___

          se    1983  complaint with  specific allegations).   There  is no
          __

          mention  of the  Fifth and  Fourteenth Amendments, let  alone any

          other constitutional basis  for an equal  protection claim.   The

          Cinelli pretrial  memorandum likewise failed to  mention any such

          equal protection claim.  See Roland M. v. Concord Sch. Comm., 910
                                   ___ _________    __________________

          F.2d 983, 998-99  (1st Cir.  1990) (failure to  raise defense  in

          pretrial  memorandum  and failure  to  object  to pretrial  order

          constitutes waiver), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 912 (1991).  
                               _____ ______

                    In contrast, Cinelli  did brief the   1983 claim (based

          on the Eighth Amendment right  to be free from cruel and  unusual

          punishment), as  well as the pendent claims for assault, battery,

          and  intentional infliction  of  emotional distress.   All  these

          claims, and none other,  were tried to the magistrate  judge, and

          it was  not until those claims  were rejected on  the merits that

          Cinelli attempted to raise  an equal protection claim.   In these

          circumstances,  there  was  no  abuse of  discretion  in  denying

          Cinelli the  opportunity  to  raise  an entirely  new  theory  of

          recovery which should have  been raised before trial.   Kattan by
                                                                  _________

          Thomas  v. District  of Columbia,  995 F.2d  274, 276  (D.C. Cir.
          ______     _____________________

          1993), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 1398 (1994).1
                 _____ ______
                              
          ____________________

               1In all events, the  belated equal protection theory offered
          little  prospect of success.  Cinelli contends that Noury singled
          him  out and  "intentionally treated  him differently  than other

                                          3

                    Cinelli  also  argues that  the  evidence unequivocally

          established that Petrella and Noury violated the Eighth Amendment

          and  committed the  torts  of assault,  battery, and  intentional

          infliction  of emotional distress.  A new trial is appropriate if

          "the outcome is  against the  clear weight of  the evidence  such

          that  upholding  the  verdict will  result  in  a  miscarriage of

          justice."  Conway v. Electro Switch Corp., 825 F.2d 593, 598 (1st
                     ______    ____________________

          Cir.  1987).    Our  review  of  the  record,  and  the  thorough

          explication provided  by the  magistrate judge, persuade  us that

          there was  no miscarriage  of  justice.   Rather, the  magistrate

          judge, as the factfinder, supportably resolved all pending claims

          after weighing the evidence and assessing the credibility  of the

          witnesses.  

                    The district court judgment is affirmed.  No costs.
                    _______________________________________   ________

                              
          ____________________

          prisoners" for the sole reason that Cinelli had commenced a civil
          rights action against  him.   There was no  timely allegation  of
          invidious discrimination  to support  an equal  protection claim.
                                                   _________________
          See Alexis  v. McDonald's Restaurants of  Massachusetts, Inc., 67
          ___ ______     ______________________________________________
          F.3d 341, 353-54 (1st Cir. 1995). 

                                          4