Court Opinion

ID: 2964974
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:33:40.702063+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:00:44.170573
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 97-1288

                                WILLIAM H. JONES, JR.,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                 COMMISSIONER, NH DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

                   [Hon. Joseph A. DiClerico, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                               Selya, Boudin and Lynch,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            William H. Jones, Jr. on brief pro se.
            _____________________
            Philip  T.  McLaughlin,  Attorney General,  Martin  P.  Honigberg,
            ______________________                      _____________________
        Senior  Assistant  Attorney  General, and  Jennifer  Brooks Gavilondo,
                                                   __________________________
        Attorney,  Civil Bureau, New  Hampshire Attorney General's  Office, on
        brief for appellees.

                                 ____________________

                                  November 19, 1997
                                 ____________________

                      Per Curiam.   Plaintiff-appellant William H. Jones,
                      __________

            Jr. appeals following  a district court judgment  in favor of

            various  prison and  halfway house  officials  on his  claims

            brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C.   1983.  We affirm.

                      Jones  complains that  the district court  erred in

            setting  aside an  entry of  default  against Corporal  Frank

            Cassidy.   We review a district court decision to set aside a

            default solely for abuse of discretion.  Leshore v. County of
                                                     _______    _________

            Worcester,  945  F.2d  471,  472  (1st Cir.  1991).    Having
            _________

            reviewed the  record, we find  no abuse of discretion  in the

            instant case.  We add that although  Jones lists the grant of

            summary judgment in  favor of Cassidy as an  issue on appeal,

            he nowhere makes  a developed argument that  summary judgment

            was in  error.   Under the circumstances,  we deem  the issue

            waived.  See King v. Town of  Hanover, 116 F.3d 965, 970 (1st
                     ___ ____    ________________

            Cir. 1997).   We add that even if  the issue were not waived,

            summary judgment  would be proper  for the reasons  stated by

            the district court.

                      Jones also contends  that the district  court erred

            in  granting  summary  judgment in  favor  of  Officer Darren

            Basoukas   Corporal   Stephen  Nolan,   and   Warden  Michael

            Cunningham.  Having reviewed the grant of summary judgment de
                                                                       __

            novo,  we find  no reversible  error.   See Dubois  v. United
            ____                                    ___ ______     ______

            States Dep't of Agric., 102  F.3d 1273, 1283 (1st Cir. 1996),
            ______________________

                                         -2-

            cert.  denied, 117 S. Ct. 2510 (1997) (setting forth standard
            _____________

            of review).    

                      The claims against Basoukas and Nolan  stemmed from

            Jones's   allegations  that  he  was  denied  insulin  and  a

            hypodermic needle on  May 24, 1994 when he signed  out of the

            halfway  house  to go  to  work.    Both Basoukas  and  Nolan

            submitted affidavits denying any  personal involvement in the

            alleged  incident.  Jones failed to submit any countervailing

            evidence on this point, and, contrary  to his suggestion, the

            records submitted  by  defendants do  not  establish  Nolan's

            presence at the "signing out."   His tardy unsworn allegation

            to  this   effect,  made   in  a   pretrial  statement,   was

            insufficient to defeat  summary judgment.  See  DeNovellis v.
                                                       ___  __________

            Shalala,  124 F.3d  298,  305-06 (1st  Cir. 1997)  ("The very
            _______

            mission of the  summary judgment procedure  is to pierce  the

            pleadings and  to assess  the proof in  order to  see whether

            there is a genuine need for trial." (quoting Fed.  R. Civ. P.

            56(e) advisory committee's note to 1963 amendment)).  F  o  r

            similar  reasons, we reject Jones's challenge to the grant of

            summary judgment in  favor of Cunningham.   The claim against

            Cunningham at issue on appeal stemmed from the alleged denial

            of special diet  meals at the halfway  house.  We agree  with

            the district  court  that  Jones  failed to  show  "[a]  link

            between  defendant  Cunningham's   alleged  indifference  and

            [Jones's] non-receipt of medical meals."  Jones introduced no

                                         -3-

            evidence, by way of affidavit or otherwise, that he ever made

            any member of Calumet House  aware that his medical condition

            required a  special diet.  His tardy,  unsworn allegations to

            the effect that staff knew he was on a special diet, made for

            the first time in his pretrial statement, are not grounds for

            reversal.

                      Affirmed.
                      _________

                                         -4-