Court Opinion

ID: 2963447
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:09:51.390747+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:19.820448
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          June 2, 1995
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCIUT

                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1124

                                  RALPH J. CATALDO,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                                  CNA INSURANCE CO.,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.

                                 ____________________

                     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.
                                            ______________

                                 ____________________

            Ralph J. Cataldo on brief pro se.
            ________________
            Glenn H. Robinson, Thompson & Bowie on brief for appellee.
            _________________  ________________

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                 Per Curiam.  We  have read carefully the record  in this
                 __________

            case and the briefs of  the parties.  We have  considered the

            various claims raised  by appellant and find  none to possess

            merit.   We affirm the grant of summary judgment to appellee,

            essentially for  the reasons given  by the district  court in

            its memorandum and order, dated January 9, 1995.  

                 Appellant's motion  to "strike or vacate  court order of

            April 18,  1995," is  denied as  moot.   While we agree  with
                                  ______

            appellee  that   the  statements  contained   in  appellant's

            "notification  of  the  creation  of  false  and   fictitious

            evidence" were  completely without  foundation  and were  not

            properly presented to this court, we do not deem it necessary

            to grant  appellee's motion  to strike the  "notification" as

            the court  has disregarded  it in  the consideration  of this

            case.   See Fine v.  Paramount Pictures, Inc.,  171 F.2d 571,
                    ___ ____     _______________________

            575 (7th Cir. 1948).

                 Affirmed. 
                 ________