Court Opinion

ID: 2964442
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:25:42.504877+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:57.189195
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1673

                                    THOMAS BANKS,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                                 BARRY MCGEE, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

                [Hon. Raymond J. Pettine, Senior U.S. District Judge]
                                          __________________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

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

                                 ____________________

            Thomas O. Banks on brief pro se.
            _______________
            Marc DeSisto, Kathleen M. Powers and  DeSisto Law Offices on brief
            ____________  __________________      ___________________
        for appellees.

                                 ____________________

                                    November 8, 1996
                                 ____________________

                 Per  Curiam.   Upon  careful  review of  the  briefs and
                 ___________

            limited  record   in  this   appeal,  we  conclude   that  no

            substantial question  is presented and that  the judgment for

            defendants should be affirmed.  We add only these comments.

                 1.   The district court did  not abuse its discretion in

            concluding that evidence of  an unrelated disciplinary action

            should  be excluded under Fed.  R. Evid. 404(b), because that

            evidence  was highly  prejudicial  and would  only show  "bad

            character from  which to  infer a  propensity  to commit  the

            present  act."  See Tigges v. Cataldo, 611 F.2d 936, 938 (1st
                            ___ ______    _______

            Cir.  1979).  Plaintiff's reliance on Fed. R. Evid. 608(b) is

            similarly unavailing.   See id. at 939. 
                                    ___ ___

                 2.   Plaintiff never brought  his claim regarding  newly

            discovered evidence  to the attention of  the district court.

            Therefore, we will not consider that claim for the first time

            in this appeal.  See Clauson v. Smith, 823 F.2d 660, 666 (1st
                             ___ _______    _____

            Cir. 1987).

                 3.   Plaintiff waived  his arguments regarding  the jury

            instructions by failing to object below.  See Fed. R. Civ. P.
                                                      ___

            51.  Therefore, we do not consider his contentions concerning

            the lack  of instructions on  state law negligence  claims or

            the content of the instruction on the deliberate indifference

            standard.  Further, upon review  for plain error, we conclude

            that  the  record  here  exhibits no  error  that  "seriously

            affected the  fairness, integrity,  or  public reputation  of

                                         -2-

            judicial proceedings."   See  Toscano v. Chandris,  S.A., 934
                                     ___  _______    _______________

            F.2d 383, 384-85 (1st Cir. 1991).

                 4.   We  reject  plaintiff's  contention  regarding  the

            jury's request  to read  trial  transcripts.   The trial  was

            relatively  brief, and  so the  district court's  decision to

            withhold the transcripts was well within its broad discretion

            in such matters.   See United States v.  Hyson, 721 F.2d 856,
                               ___ _____________     _____

            865 (1st Cir. 1983).    

                 5.   Our usual plenary review of the directed verdict is

            stymied  here because  plaintiff  has provided  an incomplete

            trial  transcript.  See  Fed. R. App.  P. 10(b)(1) (appellant
                                ___

            has the duty to  "order from the court reporter  a transcript

            of such  parts of the proceedings not already on file as [he]

            deems necessary"); Valedon Martinez v. Hospital Presbiteriano
                               ________________    ______________________

            de  la Comunidad, Inc., 806  F.2d 1128, 1135  (1st Cir. 1986)
            ______________________

            (we will not  review a claim of error if appellant has failed

            to include a transcript of  the pertinent proceedings in  the

            record on appeal).   In any case,  our review of the  limited

            record available does  not lead  us to conclude  that a  jury

            question  remained as to the  city's liability.   See id. (we
                                                              ___ ___

            nevertheless  may consider  appellant's claim  to the  extent

            possible).

                 Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.
                 ________   ___

                                         -3-