Court Opinion

ID: 2964323
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:24:00.223458+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:47.159228
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

        September 23, 1996      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 96-1552

                                   JOHN J. O'HEARN,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                    MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER AND SMITH, INC.,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                       [Hon. Mark L. Wolf, U.S. District Judge]
                                           ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

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

                                 ____________________

            John J. O'Hearn, Jr. on brief pro se.
            ____________________
            Thomas Paul  Gorman, Bryan  G. Killian  and Sherin  and Lodgen  on
            ___________________  _________________      __________________
        brief for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                      Per Curiam.    Plaintiff-appellant O'Hearn  appeals
                      __________

            from   the  dismissal  of   his  amended  complaint  alleging

            discrimination on the basis  of religion and sex, as  well as

            negligent,  intentional, and  business torts.   Reviewing the

            dismissal de novo, and  considering the parties' arguments on
                      __ ____

            appeal, we  find no substantial  reason to disagree  with the

            district court's conclusion, under  Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6),

            that  the  amended  complaint   failed  to  state  a  legally

            cognizable claim.  

                      As  to appellant's assignments of procedural error,

            upon  examination of the record  we conclude:   (1) The court

            did not  abuse its discretion by  denying appellant's motions

            for  an appointment  of counsel;  (2) appellant  was afforded

            sufficient  opportunities to  amend  the  complaint; (3)  the

            court  did not  err  in resolving  the  Rule 12(b)(6)  motion

            without  an oral  hearing, as  appellant did  not demonstrate

            that the motion could not  be fairly and effectively  "heard"

            on  the papers.   See United States  v. McGill, 11  F.3d 223,
                              ___ _____________     ______

            225-26 (1st Cir. 1993).

                      Appellant's motion  for oral argument on  appeal is

            denied.  The judgment below is affirmed.   See Loc. R. 27.1.
            ______                         ________

                                         -2-