Court Opinion

ID: 2964001
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:18:49.003998+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:00:46.049967
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          March 27, 1996
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 95-2030

                                C. D. DI GIAMBATTISTA,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                             MICHAEL J. DOHERTY, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

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

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                           Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________

                                 ____________________

            C. D. Di Giambattista on brief pro se.
            _____________________

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                 Per Curiam.  The  judgment is affirmed substantially for
                 __________

            the reasons enumerated by  the district court in its  pair of

            decisions  dated  November 2,  1993  and  September 1,  1995,

            respectively.  We add that plaintiff has proffered no grounds

            for concluding that Judge Mazzone's refusal to recuse himself

            from  the  case  (prior  to its  reassignment  for  unrelated

            reasons) constituted an abuse of discretion.  See, e.g., Town
                                                          ___  ____  ____

            of Norfolk v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 968 F.2d
            __________    _____________________________________

            1438, 1460 (1st Cir. 1992).   Nor has he pointed to a genuine

            issue  of  material fact  that  would preclude  the  award of

            summary judgment in favor of defendants Henry and Doherty; as

            Judge  Lindsay explained,  the evidence  was  undisputed that

            plaintiff was  arrested as a result of  his abusive behavior.

            Plaintiff's remaining  contentions, to  the extent  they have

            been advanced in something  more than a "perfunctory manner,"

            McIntosh  v. Antonio, 71 F.3d 29, 38 (1st Cir. 1995) (quoting
            ________     _______

            Ryan v. Royal  Ins. Co. of  America, 916  F.2d 731, 734  (1st
            ____    ___________________________

            Cir. 1990)), prove equally unavailing.

                 Affirmed.  See Loc. R. 27.1.
                 ____________________________

                                         -2-