Court Opinion

ID: 2964239
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:22:38.099742+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:51.913446
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          July 18, 1996
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 96-1249

                               RICHARD A. COLE, ET AL.,

                               Plaintiffs, Appellants,

                                          v.

                                MARIA FABIANO, ET AL.,

                               Defendants, Appellants.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                   [Hon. Reginald C. Lindsay, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Selya, Cyr and Boudin,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Richard A. Cole, M.D. F.A.C.P. on brief pro se.
            ______________________________
            Hugh C. Carlin, Gross, Shuman, Brizdle  & Gilfillan, P.C., Lee  T.
            ______________  _________________________________________  _______
        Gesmer, and Lucash, Gesmer & Updegrove on brief for appellees.
        ______      __________________________

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                      Per Curiam.  Upon careful  review of the record and
                      __________

            appellate  briefs,  it clearly  appears  that  no substantial

            question is presented for review.  

                      Because appellant  did not ask  the district  court

            for a  transfer and made no showing  that a transfer would be

            in the  interest of  justice, we  conclude that  the district

            court did not abuse  its discretion in failing to  order one.

            See 28  U.S.C.    1406(a);  Cote v. Wadel, 796  F.2d 981, 984
            ___                         ____    _____

            (7th  Cir. 1986); see  also Mulcahy v.  Guertler, 416 F.Supp.
                              _________ _______     ________

            1083, 1086 (D.Mass. 1976).

                      Appellant's   remaining   arguments  likewise   are

            without  merit:   he  had  ample  opportunity  to respond  to

            defendants' motion to dismiss; he never sought leave to amend

            his complaint, and, in any case, amendment would not cure the

            defects in venue; and  neither defendants' credibility on the

            issue of service, nor appellant's failure to obtain a copy of

            the local rules, suggests to us any reason to reverse. 

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

                                         -3-