Filed: Jun. 14, 1993
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: Circuit Judges.John B. Dempsey on brief pro se.Per Curiam.denying pro se appellant's motion under Fed. See Duffy v. Clippinger, 857 F.2d 877, 879 (1st Cir.judgment on the part of the trial court.order restraining order is denied.
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For The FIRST CIRCUIT
No. 93-1164
JOHN B. DEMPSEY,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
VANNA WHITE,
Defendant, Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. A. David Mazzone, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Torruella, Cyr and Boudin,
Circuit Judges.
John B. Dempsey on brief pro se.
June 11, 1993
Per Curiam. The only question presented by this
appeal is whether the district court abused its discretion in
denying pro se appellant's motion under Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b). See Duffy v. Clippinger, 857 F.2d 877, 879 (1st Cir.
1988). Appellant's allegations that he is entitled to relief
from judgment because of excusable neglect, Rule 60(b)(1),
and newly discovered evidence, Rule 60(b)(2), are frivolous.
It is clear that appellant's profferings - that he failed to
cite certain statutes, propound certain theories, offer
certain amendments, or refer to certain non-legal
publications - are merely attempts to reargue the merits of
his case. We affirmed the dismissal of appellant's complaint
as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. 1915(d). Dempsey v. White,
No. 91-1253, slip op. Mar. 29, 1991. There was no error of
judgment on the part of the trial court.
Affirmed. Appellant's pending motion for a gag
order restraining order is denied.
- 2 -
