Court Opinion

ID: 2963630
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:13:16.099985+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:29.515579
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          October 2, 1995
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                  THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1332

                                   JOHN F. DESMOND,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                             DEPARTMENT OF NAVY, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                       [Hon. Mark L. Wolf, U.S. District Judge]
                                           ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

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

                                 ____________________

            John F. Desmond on brief pro se.
            _______________
            Donald  K. Stern,  United States  Attorney, and  David  S. Mackey,
            ________________                                 ________________
        Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellees.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________
         

                      Per Curiam.  Plaintiff filed pro se an eleven count
                      __________                   ___ __

            amended complaint  alleging  a variety  of common-law  torts,

            constitutional,  and  statutory  claims  against  the  United

            States Department  of the  Navy, the Department  of Veterans'

            Affairs  and unknown  government  agents.   In  a motion  "to

            dismiss or for summary judgment," defendants sought dismissal

            of most  of the  counts on jurisdictional  grounds, including

            lack  of statutory jurisdiction,  sovereign immunity, failure

            to  timely file  under  the  Federal  Torts  Claims  Act  and

            mootness.  Other counts were challenged  for failure to state

            a claim.   Plaintiff offered voluminous  exhibits, affidavits

            and memoranda in support of his cause.

                      The  magistrate's  careful  and  thoughtful  report

            analyzed  each  of the  claims,  the  relevant arguments  and

            evidence,  and  recommended  dismissal  of   each  count  for

            separately delineated jurisdictional and merit-based reasons.

            Plaintiff's  lengthy  objections  to  the  report  were  then

            considered   by   the  district   judge,   who  adopted   the

            magistrate's recommendations in all respects.  

                      Reviewing the dismissal de  novo, we too agree with
                                              __  ____

            the magistrate's  detailed analysis  and affirm  the district

            court judgment substantially for the reasons set forth in the

            magistrate's report.  

                      We have also explored the record with care in light

            of a host of alleged procedural errors assigned by plaintiff.

            Without  attempting  to  characterize  plaintiff's  arguments

            precisely, he challenges most of the court's interim rulings,

            including  an  order extending  the  time  for defendants  to

            answer  the  complaint, an  order  staying discovery  pending

            disposition of defendants' motion  to dismiss, the  procedure

            used  and  evidence considered  in  resolving  the motion  to

            dismiss,  the rejection of his  motion for the appointment of

            counsel,  and the rejection of his motions for recusal of the

            district judge.  In  addition, plaintiff challenges the power

            of the court to  appoint a magistrate to consider  the motion

            to dismiss. 

                      We   find  no   abuse  of   discretion   nor  other

            prejudicial  error in the court's  orders.  There  is also no

            support   in   the   record   for   plaintiff's  wide-ranging

            accusations  of  fraud,  intimidation, and  other  wrongdoing

            during  the pendency of the  case by defendants, the district

            judge, the magistrates and the court clerk.

                      The judgment is affirmed.  Plaintiff's motions "for
                                      ________

            hearing  on fraud upon the court," for "summary judgement . .

            .  because  of  appellee's  fraud," and  "to  hold  immediate

            hearing on death threats," are denied.
                                           ______

                                         -3-