Court Opinion

ID: 2963997
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:18:44.497542+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:43.696146
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          March 29, 1996        [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

          No. 95-1993

                                   JOHN M. ATKINS,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                                   RAYTHEON CORP.,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

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

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

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

                                 ____________________

               John M. Atkins on brief pro se.
               ______________
               David C. Casey, Elena E. Salzman and Peckham,  Lobel, Casey,
               ______________  ________________     _______________________
          Prince & Tye on brief for appellee.
          ____________

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                      Per  Curiam.   On  appeal from  an adverse  summary
                      ___________

            judgment, appellant assigns a single error: that the district

            court  abused  its  discretion  in  denying  his  motion  for

            discovery  under  Fed. R.  Civ. P.  56(f).   After  a careful

            review  of the  record,  we  see  no  abuse  of  the  court's

            considerable discretion to manage  pretrial proceedings.  See
                                                                      ___

            Carreiro v. Rhodes Gill & Co., Ltd., 68 F.3d 1443, 1446  (1st
            ________    _______________________

            Cir. 1995).    Appellant offered  no  basis to  believe  that

            further discovery  would raise a  trialworthy issue.   Id. at
                                                                   ___

            1449.  

                       Affirmed.
                       ________

                                         -2-