Court Opinion

ID: 2964422
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:25:27.697483+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:56.005107
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 96-1208

                                    EARL BRAXTON,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                             CITY OF PROVIDENCE, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

                    [Hon. Ronald R. Lagueux, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Selya, Cyr and Boudin,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Earl Braxton on brief pro se.
            ____________
            Kevin F.  McHugh, Assistant  City Solicitor,  City of  Providence,
            ________________
        Law Dept., on brief for appellee City of Providence.
            Michael J.  Colucci  and Olenn  &  Penza  on brief  for  appellees
            ___________________      _______________
        Flynn, McKnight, Fitzpatrick, Coughlin, Clements and Lee.

                                 ____________________

                                  November 19, 1996
                                 ____________________

                 Per Curiam.  Plaintiff,  Earl Braxton, appeals the grant
                 __________

            of summary judgment in  favor of the defendants, the  City of

            Providence, Rhode Island,  and six City police  officers.  We

            have carefully reviewed the parties' briefs and the record on

            appeal.   We affirm the district court's judgment in favor of

            the  defendants, essentially  for the  reasons stated  in the

            magistrate-judge's Report and Recommendation,  dated December

            13, 1995, and, with respect  to Braxton's request for  return

            of the  automobile, for  the reason  stated  by the  district

            court  at the hearing held  on January 16,  1996, see tr. pp.
                                                              ___

            17-19.1
                  1

                 We have  considered all of Braxton's  arguments and find

            none with  merit.  We see no need to address each separately.

            We note only the following.

                                
            ____________________

               1Braxton also  purports to  be appealing a  prior district
               1
            court  order   approving  an  August  15,   1995  Report  and
            Recommendation of the  magistrate, that recommended dismissal
            of defendant State  of Rhode  Island on the  ground that  the
            State is not a person within the meaning of 42 U.S.C.   1983.
            However, we  note that Braxton's  notice of appeal,  filed on
            February 6,  1996, made specific reference  only to appealing
            the  December  13, 1995  Report  and  Recommendation and  the
            district court's acceptance of it.  Reference to a particular
            ruling  denotes  an  intention   not  to  appeal  other  non-
            referenced rulings.   See,  e.g., Kotler v.  American Tobacco
                                  __________  ______     ________________
            Co.,  981 F.2d 7, 11 (1st  Cir. 1992).  Moreover, Braxton did
            ___
            not serve  a copy  of this notice  of appeal  or his  opening
            brief on the State.  Arguably, therefore, Braxton has  waived
            any appellate arguments  regarding the  earlier dismissal  of
            the State of Rhode Island.
                 In any event, the dismissal of the State of Rhode Island
            was correct for reasons  stated by the magistrate.   See Will
                                                                 ___ ____
            v. Michigan Dep't  of State  Police, 491 U.S.  58, 71  (1989)
               ________________________________
            (holding that a state is not a person under   1983).

                                         -2-

                 Although Braxton is  correct in contending that,  absent

            party agreement (which did not occur here), a magistrate does

            not have the  authority to  hear and determine  a motion  for
                                             _____________

            summary judgment, 28  U.S.C.   636(b)(1)(A),  that contention

            has  no relevance here.  The magistrate did not determine the
                                                        ___

            motions for summary judgment; rather, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.  

            636(b)(1)(B),  the  magistrate   submitted  his  report   and

            recommendation  on  these motions,  which  were  reviewed and

            finally determined by the district court.

                 Braxton has  filed two post-briefing  motions with  this

            court requesting leave to supplement the record with material

            not  presented to  the  district court.    These motions  are

            denied.  This  court reviews  an appeal based  on the  record

            below which  encompasses "[t]he original papers  and exhibits

            filed in  the district court, the  transcript of proceedings,

            if any, and a  certified copy of the docket  entries prepared

            by the  clerk of the district court."  Fed. R. App. P. 10(a).

            In any  event, nothing  contained in  these  two motions  and

            their  attachments  would  change  our  disposition  of  this

            appeal.

                 The motions to supplement the record are denied.
                                                          _______

                 The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
                                                       _________

                                         -3-

                                         -4-