Court Opinion

ID: 2964276
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:23:05.954179+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:21:07.402285
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 96-1604

                                     FRED DAVIS,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                       WONDERLAND GREYHOUND PARK, INC., ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                   [Hon. Douglas P. Woodlock, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

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

                                 ____________________

            Fred Davis on brief pro se.
            __________
            Stephen B. Reed and Kearns & Rubin, P.C. on brief for appellees.
            _______________     ____________________

                                 ____________________

                                   August 27, 1996
                                 ____________________

                      Per  Curiam.   Having  reviewed the  entire record,
                      ___________

            including  the  transcript of  the  June  30, 1995  truncated

            deposition  at which  plaintiff  claims he  was harassed,  we

            summarily affirm the dismissal  of plaintiff's action for the

            reasons  stated  in  the  district  court's  April  11,  1996

            memorandum and order.  Plaintiff was not unfairly  treated at

            the   deposition  and   plaintiff   was   afforded   multiple

            opportunities  to  complete the  deposition.   When plaintiff

            failed  without any  adequately  documented justification  to

            appear  for the  rescheduled  deposition, the  court did  not

            abuse its discretion in dismissing plaintiff's action.

                      Affirmed.  Loc. R. 27.1.
                      ________

                                         -2-