Court Opinion

ID: 2964538
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:27:09.101837+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:57.129499
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 96-2243

                                    FRIEDRICH LU,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                              DAVID F. HADLOCK, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.
                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                  [Hon. George A. O'Toole, Jr., U.S. District Judge]
                                                ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                 Selya, Circuit Judge,
                                        _____________
                              Cyr, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                   ____________________
                              and Boudin, Circuit Judge.
                                          _____________
                                 ____________________

            Friedrich Lu on brief pro se.
            ____________
            George A.  Berman, Deirdre M.  Giblin and  Posternak, Blankstein &
            _________________  __________________      _______________________
        Lund, L.L.P. on brief for appellees Jeffrey C. Turk, David F. Hadlock,
        ____________
        Karen  Schultz Breda, George A.  Berman, Andrea F.  Nuciforo, Jr., and
        Posternak, Blankstein & Lund, L.L.P.
            Russell F.  Conn and  Conn, Kavanaugh,  Rosenthal, Peisch  & Ford,
            ________________      ____________________________________________
        L.L.P.  on brief  for appellees  Michael J.  Powers, Russell  F. Conn,
        ______
        Maria  E. DeLuzio,  and  Conn, Kavanaugh,  Rosenthal,  Peisch &  Ford,
        L.L.P.  
            Laurence M. Starr on brief for appellee Laurence M. Starr.
            _________________
            Ronald  L. Brandt  on brief  for  appellees  Ronald L.  Brandt and
            _________________
        Brandt, Kramer & Figman.
            Cameron F. Kerry, Michael J. Gill  and Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris,
            ________________  _______________      ___________________________
        Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. on brief for appellees Richard Portal, Cameron
        _______________________

        F. Kerry,  Michael J.  Gill, Wayne  P. Godin  and Mintz,  Levin, Cohn,
        Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
            Acheson H. Callaghan, Jr., Kenneth W.  Salinger and Palmer & Dodge
            _________________________  ____________________     ______________
        L.L.P.  on  brief  for appellees  Gerald  T.  Anglin  and Tommasino  &
        ______
        Tommasino.
            Jeffrey C. Turk and McCullough, Stievater  & Polvere on brief  for
            _______________     ________________________________
        appellees Willard S. Stievater and McCullough, Stievater & Polvere.

                                 ____________________

                                  FEBRUARY 28, 1997
                                 ____________________

                                         -3-

                 Per  Curiam.   For  the reasons  stated in  the district
                 ___________

            court order, appellant's complaint properly was dismissed for

            want  of federal  subject matter  jurisdiction.   Further, we

            perceive no  error or  abuse  of discretion  in the  district

            court's  summary  rejection  of   appellant's  post-dismissal

            motions for  reconsideration, recusal,  and amendment  of the

            complaint.  And  we find no  merit in appellant's  additional

            contentions  regarding  discovery,  sanctions,  and  attorney

            conduct.

                 The  judgment is affirmed.   See 1st Cir.  Loc. R. 27.1.
                                  ________    ___

            Appellant's  motions  for default  and  expedited review  are

            denied,  as are his requests for costs and for publication of
            ______

            this opinion.

                                         -3-