Court Opinion

ID: 2966148
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:49:28.508781+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:55.908840
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

       [NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
                 United States Court of Appeals
                     For the First Circuit

No. 99-1391

                    ROBERT A. MCLAUGHLIN, SR.,

                      Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                v.

               WARDEN, NEW HAMPSHIRE STATE PRISON,

                       Defendant, Appellee.

           APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

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

                              Before

                    Selya, Boudin and Lynch,
                        Circuit Judges.
                                
                                
                                
                                
     
     Robert A. McLaughlin, Sr. on brief pro se.
     Steven M. Houran, Deputy Attorney General, Daniel J. Mullen,
Senior Assistant Attorney General, and Andrew B. Livernois,
Attorney, on brief for appellee.

December 28, 1999

                                
                                

            Per Curiam.  Robert A. McLaughlin appeals pro se from
  the district court order granting defendant's motion for
  summary judgment.  Having conducted a careful, de novo review
  of the record, we affirm for essentially the reasons stated in
  the district court's detailed and well-reasoned Order, dated
  February 26, 1999.  We add only the following comment.  
            McLaughlin made reference in his Opposition to the
  Motion for Summary Judgment to his treatment by the authorities
  at the North Florida Reception Center where he was held for
  three months in 1994, including the alleged refusal to provide
  him with his legal files or to allow him to contact the court
  where his state habeas petition was pending.  McLaughlin's
  brief focuses on those allegations, although they were not
  included in his complaint.  Treating McLaughlin's new
  allegations in his Opposition to the Motion for Summary
  Judgment as a motion to amend the complaint, there was no abuse
  of discretion in the failure of the district court to allow the
  amendment. See Resolution Trust Corp. v. Gold, 30 F.3d 251, 253
  (1st Cir. 1994) (where motion to amend is filed while summary
  judgment motion is pending, plaintiff is "required to
  demonstrate to the district court that the proposed amendments
  were supported by 'substantial and convincing evidence'").  
            The district court order granting defendant's motion
  for summary judgment is affirmed.