Court Opinion

ID: 2965668
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:43:25.365544+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:52.182307
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION--NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
                                 No. 98-1735

                         JANE B. ROBERTS,

                      Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                v.

                    KEVIN E. ROBERTS, ET AL.,

                      Defendants, Appellees.

           APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

          [Hon. Richard G. Stearns, U.S. District Judge]

                              Before

 Stahl, Circuit Judge,
Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
and Lynch, Circuit Judge.

     Elaine Whitfield Sharp, Daniel S. Sharp and Whitfield, Sharp & Sharp on brief for appellant.

February 9, 1999

                                
                                

            Per Curiam.  Upon de novo review of the record, and
  consideration of appellant's brief, we conclude that the
  summary judgments for defendants Duffy, Gilleo, and Henderson
  should not be set aside.  We reach this conclusion essentially
  for the reasons given in the magistrate judge's Report and
  Recommendation dated February 27, 1998, and in the district
  court's Memorandum and Order dated May 12, 1998.  We add only
  one comment.  
             Any procedural irregularity in entering judgment for
  defendant Gilleo was harmless, because, in connection with the
  Dorsey defendants' motion for summary judgment, appellant had
  ample opportunity and motivation to litigate the question of
  defendant Gilleo's role.  See Berkovitz v. Home Box Office,
  Inc., 89 F.3d 24, 29 (1st Cir. 1996); Jardines Bacata, Ltd. v.
  Diaz-Martinez, 878 F.2d 1555, 1561 (1st Cir. 1989).  The
  findings and conclusions on that subject in the magistrate
  judge's Report and Recommendation effectively disposed of the
  claims against defendant Gilleo.  Appellant failed to object to
  any aspect of that Report and Recommendation, and judgment was
  entered accordingly.  See United States v. Wihbey, 75 F.3d 761,
  766 n.1 (1st Cir. 1996).  Even were we inclined to consider
  appellant's belated and forfeited arguments now, in any event,
  those arguments do not persuade us that any viable claims
  remained.
  
  
                                -2-
             As appellant has appealed from the judgments for
  defendants Duffy, Gilleo, and Henderson only, the motion of the
  Dorsey defendants is denied as moot.
             Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.