Court Opinion

ID: 2964962
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:33:29.816226+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:43:03.265617
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 97-1469

                                  RALPH J. CATALDO,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                               MICHAEL ROBERTS, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

                       [Hon. Gene Carter, U.S. District Judge]
                                          ___________________
                     [Hon. David M. Cohen, U.S. Magistrate Judge]
                                           _____________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                               Selya, Boudin and Lynch,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Ralph J. Cataldo on brief pro se.
            ________________
            Andrew Ketterer, Attorney General, and  Peter J. Brann,  Assistant
            _______________                         ______________
        Attorney General,  on brief for appellees Michael  Roberts and Michael
        Morrison.
            William R. Fisher,  Ivy L. Frignoca and Monaghan, Leahy,  Hochadel
            _________________   _______________     __________________________
        & Libby  on brief for  appellees Edward Reynolds and  Penobscot County
        _______
        Sheriff's Department.
            Harold  C.  Hamilton and  Logan,  Kurr  & Hamilton  on  brief  for
            ____________________      ________________________
        appellee BettyLynn Trusz.

                                 ____________________
                                   October 6, 1997
                                 ____________________

                      Per  Curiam.  We have carefully reviewed the record
                      ___________

            and conclude that the various  orders of dismissal entered by

            the  district judge  were  entirely  appropriate.    We  also

            conclude  that,  as  to  the  remaining  claims  against  the

            remaining  defendants,  the  magistrate  judge  appropriately

            granted  summary judgment for the reasons explained at length

            in  his  memorandum  opinion.    The  new evidence  that  the

            appellant proffers cannot be considered on appeal, see United
                                                               ___ ______

            States v. Kobrosky,  711 F.2d 449, 456 (1st  Cir. 1983), and,
            ______    ________

            thus, cannot affect  the outcome.  Similarly, the  new issues

            that the appellant seeks to raise for  the first time are not

            properly before us.  See Martinez v. Colon, 54 F.3d 980,  987
                                 ___ ________    _____

            (1st Cir.),  cert. denied, 116  s. Ct. 515 (1995).   Finally,
                         _____ ______

            certain skeletal allegations of  error, presented without any

            developed argumentation, do  not warrant review.   See United
                                                               ___ ______

            States  v.  Zannino,  895  F.2d   1,  17  (1st  Cir.   1990).
            ______      _______

            Consequently, they do not warrant comment here.

                      We  need  go no  further.   The  judgment  below is

            summarily affirmed.  See 1st Cir. R. 27.1.
                                 ___

                      Affirmed.
                      ________

                                         -2-