Court Opinion

ID: 2961958
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 20:50:22.376724+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:52.527985
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                For The FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 93-1164                                    JOHN B. DEMPSEY,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                                     VANNA WHITE,                                 Defendant, Appellee.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                     [Hon. A. David Mazzone, U.S. District Judge]                                             ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                              Torruella, Cyr and Boudin,                                   Circuit Judges.                                   ______________                                 ____________________            John B. Dempsey on brief pro se.            _______________                                 ____________________                                    June 11, 1993                                 ____________________                      Per Curiam.   The only  question presented by  this                      __________            appeal is whether the district court abused its discretion in            denying  pro  se appellant's  motion  under Fed.  R.  Civ. P.                     ___  __            60(b).  See Duffy v. Clippinger,  857 F.2d 877, 879 (1st Cir.                    ___ _____    __________            1988).  Appellant's allegations that he is entitled to relief            from judgment  because of  excusable neglect,  Rule 60(b)(1),            and newly discovered evidence,  Rule 60(b)(2), are frivolous.            It is clear that appellant's  profferings - that he failed to            cite  certain  statutes,  propound  certain  theories,  offer            certain   amendments,   or   refer   to   certain   non-legal            publications  - are merely attempts to  reargue the merits of            his case.  We affirmed the dismissal of appellant's complaint            as frivolous  under 28 U.S.C.    1915(d).  Dempsey  v. White,                                                       _______     _____            No. 91-1253, slip op. Mar. 29,  1991.  There was no error  of            judgment on the part of the trial court.                      Affirmed.   Appellant's  pending motion  for a  gag                      ________            order restraining order is denied.                                       ______                                        - 2 -