Court Opinion

ID: 2965139
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:35:57.117451+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:02:11.427563
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 97-1914

                                   GENE SCHOFIELD,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                              JAMES BROWN, ETC., ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                  [Hon. George A. O'Toole, Jr., U.S. District Judge]
                                                ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

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

                                 ____________________

            Gene Schofield on brief pro se.
            ______________
            Ann Pauly, Richmond,  Pauly & Ault and  Leon Friedman on brief for
            _________  _______________________      _____________
        appellees James Brown and Polygram Records, Inc.
            Leonard  L. Lewin,  Michael N.  Sheetz,   and  Gadsby &  Hannah on
            _________________   __________________         ________________
        brief for appellees Dynatone Publishing Co. and Rightsong Music, Inc.

                                 ____________________

                                   February 5, 1998
                                 ____________________

                 Per Curiam.   This is an appeal from  a summary judgment
                 __________

            dismissing  appellant's  claims  of  copyright  infringement.

            Reviewing the  judgment de novo,  in light of the  briefs and
                                    __ ____

            the record, we  agree with the district  court's analysis and

            affirm  substantially for  the  reasons  set  forth  in  that

            court's Memorandum and Order of  June  11, 1997.  See Loc. R.
                                                              ___

            27.1.   We also  see no  abuse of discretion  in the  court's

            alternative  ruling on  the  defense of  laches,  nor in  the

            multiple procedural rulings which appellant assigns as errors

            on appeal. 

                  Affirmed.
                  ________

                                         -2-