Court Opinion

ID: 2965042
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:34:29.495512+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:02:20.985260
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 97-1968

                                   LLOYD MATTHEWS,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                                 PAUL RAKIEY, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                     [Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

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

                                 ____________________

            Katharine F. Zupan and  Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P.  on
            __________________      ______________________________________
        brief for appellant.
            Nancy Ankers White, Special Assistant  Attorney General, and  Joel
            __________________                                            ____
        J. Berner, Counsel, Department of Correction, on brief for appellees.
        _________

                                 ____________________

                                   December 9, 1997
                                 ____________________

          

                 Per Curiam.    Upon careful  review  of the  briefs  and
                 __________

            record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its

            discretion in  denying plaintiff's  1993 or  1995 motions  to

            amend his complaint.  Even  in light of plaintiff's prior pro

            se  status and his various letters  and motions in 1990-1991,

            we cannot say  that the district court was  required in 1990-

            1991  to offer plaintiff  any additional advice  or to create

            any  additional  opportunity  for   plaintiff  to  amend  his

            complaint. 

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

                                         -2-