Court Opinion

ID: 2964088
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:20:15.491606+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:50.100233
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          April 12, 1996
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 95-2099

                                    TIMOTHY DAVIS,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                        MASSACHUSETTS STATE LOTTERY COMMISSION
                                  and DANIEL KINNEY,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                      [Hon. Nancy Gertner, U.S. District Judge]
                                           ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                 Lynch, Circuit Judge,
                                        _____________

                      Aldrich and Bownes, Senior Circuit Judges.
                                          _____________________

                                 ____________________

            John A. Morrissey  with whom Law  Offices of  James C. Gahan,  Jr.
            _________________            _____________________________________
        was on brief for appellant.
            Marie  St. Fleur,  Assistant  Attorney General,  with  whom  Scott
            ________________                                             _____
        Harshbarger, Attorney General, was on brief for appellees.
        ___________  ________________

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                      Per  Curiam.  Plaintiff-appellant Timothy Davis, an
                      ___________

            employee of the Massachusetts State Lottery  Commission, sued

            the  Commission  and  Daniel  Kinney,  his  supervisor,   for

            violation  of civil rights, racial discrimination, infliction

            of emotional distress, and improper layoff, stemming from his

            dismissal  by the  Commission  on May  1, 1991.1   Defendants

            moved  to dismiss  for failure  to state  a claim  upon which

            relief could be granted.   The court granted the  motion, but

            later   allowed   plaintiff's  Motion   for  Reconsideration,

            permitting him to  file an amended  complaint adding a  count

            (Count  VI)  seeking compensatory  and  punitive damages  for

            violation of  his federally  protected rights after  November

            21, 1991, the date of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C.

              1981a(b)(1).   In due course, defendants  moved for summary

            judgment  on all  claims.   This  motion, also,  was granted,

            incorporating,  but simply by  reference, the court's earlier

            Memorandum and Order.  We affirm.

                       The obligatory appendix  which plaintiff filed for

            this  appeal  totally  disregards Federal  Rule  of Appellate

            Procedure  30.  Except  for a copy  of Count VI,  none of the

            required  items  is present.    Instead  are some  60  pages,

            largely  memoranda of law filed in the district court.  These

            the  Rule expressly forbids.  FRAP 30(a).  Nor does reference

            to such filings meet brief  requirements.  FRAP 28.   We will

                                
            ____________________

            1.  Following arbitration, the improper layoff was corrected.

                                         -2-

            not consider them.   Plaintiff  did attach  to his  appellate

            brief  the court's Memorandum  and Decision  granting summary

            judgment for  defendants on Count  VI, but failed  to include

            anywhere  the court's earlier memorandum dismissing Counts I-

            V.  FRAP 30(a)(3).

                      In   granting   defendants'   motion  for   summary

            judgment, the  court set  the course for  plaintiff's appeal:

            "I find that he has failed to meet his burden of establishing

            a prima facie case  of unlawful discrimination after November

            21,  1991."   Plaintiff's filings  do not  enable us  to find

            otherwise.   The (very) occasional references in his brief to

            alleged  evidence  of  continuing  discrimination  after  his

            reinstatement consist of cryptic allusions to: "Davis Depo.";

            "A copy of his  affidavit in this regard is  annexed hereto."

            (It was not); "Kelly  Depo., p. 38-51" (also not  included in

            the appendix);  and "Memorandum  in Support of  Opposition to

            the Motion for Summary Judgment  . . . pages 12 through  16."

            Finally, in an attempt to rebut the court's exposition of how

            he  failed  to  make out  a  prima  facie case  on  Count VI,
                                         _____  _____

            plaintiff points to his  amended complaint as "establish[ing]

            genuine issues of material fact which render summary judgment

            inappropriate."    He  states  he has  "detailed  harassment,

            retaliation,   and  continuing  acts   of  discrimination  by

            Defendants," without  reference to the record  other than the

            complaint.   In lieu, "Davis  respectfully refers to pages 16

                                         -3-

            through 19 of his  Memorandum," which, as already  noted, was

            improperly filed.

                      All  this is  meaningless.   Fundamentally, without

            specific facts,  the non-moving  party  (plaintiff) "may  not

            rest upon the  mere allegations of [its]  pleading" to defend

            against  summary judgment  for the  defendant.   Fed.R.Civ.P.

            56(e).  Ramsdell v.  Bowles, 64 F.3d  5, 11 (1st Cir.  1995).
                    ________     ______

            Plaintiff presents neither facts nor law to make out a case.

                      This is an extraordinary waste of time.  The appeal

            is dismissed on the opinion below.

                                         -4-