Court Opinion

ID: 2964186
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:21:50.337014+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:46.385801
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          June 17, 1996
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 95-2065

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                 Plaintiff, Appellee,

                                          v.

                      PORTLAND-PARRIS STREET ASSOCIATES, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                                 
                                     ____________

                                    WAYNE JOHNSON,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

                     [Hon. D. Brock Hornby, U.S. District Judge]
                                            ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

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

                                 ____________________

            Wayne Johnson on brief pro se.
            _____________
            Jay  P.  McCloskey,  United  States  Attorney,  Frank  W.  Hunger,
            __________________                              _________________
        Assistant Attorney  General, Freddi Lipstein and Mark  C. Niles, Civil
                                     _______________     ______________
        Division, Department of Justice.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________
                      Per  Curiam.    Defendant-appellant  challenges  an
                      ___________

            adverse summary judgment finding him liable for debts arising

            from  several  promissory notes,  and  the  dismissal of  his

            various counterclaims  on jurisdictional grounds.   Reviewing

            the judgment  and dismissals de novo,  and upon consideration
                                         __ ____

            of   the  parties'   briefs   and  the   record,  we   affirm

            substantially for  the reasons set forth  in district court's

            order of July  27, 1995.  See  Loc. R. 27.1.  We  also see no
                                      ___

            abuse  of  discretion  in  the  district  court's  denial  of

            appellant's request for further discovery in this action.

                      Affirmed.
                      ________

                                         -3-