Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Cole v. Wittman, 96-1583 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Number: 96-1583 Visitors: 22
Filed: Sep. 12, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: _________________ __________________________ __________________, Dale Huntley and MacDonald, Illig, Jones Britton LLP on brief for, ____________ ______________________________________, appellees MacDonald, Illig, Jones Britton LLP.merits of the order dismissing appellant's complaint.
USCA1 Opinion












September 12, 1996 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________


No. 96-1583

RICHARD A. COLE, M.D.,
Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

THOMAS WITTMAN, 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

Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________
Cyr and Stahl, Circuit Judges. ______________
____________________


Richard A. Cole, M.D. F.A.C.P. on brief pro se. ______________________________
Jennifer L. Johnston and Quinn, Buseck, Leemhuis, Toohey & Kroto, ____________________ ________________________________________
Inc. on brief for appellees Thomas Wittmann, M.D., Vinod Patel, M.D., ____
Edward Overfield, M.D., Chest Diseases of Northwestern Pennsylvania,
Saint Vincent Health Center and Saint Vincent Foundation for Health
and Human Services.
Daniel J. Pastore and The McDonald Group, L.L.P. on brief for __________________ ___________________________
appellees John T. Schaaf, M.D., Hamot Medical Center and Hamot
Healthcare Corp.
Jeffrey R. Cohen, Wayne, Lazares & Chappell, W. Patrick Delaney, _________________ __________________________ __________________
Dale Huntley and MacDonald, Illig, Jones & Britton LLP on brief for ____________ ______________________________________
appellees MacDonald, Illig, Jones & Britton LLP.
Jeffrey R. Cohen and Wayne, Lazares & Chappell on brief for _________________ ____________________________
appellee Millcreek Community Hospital.

____________________


____________________













Per Curiam. For the purposes of this appeal, we assume, __________

without deciding, that we have jurisdiction to consider the

merits of the order dismissing appellant's complaint. In any

case, upon careful review of the record and appellate briefs,

it clearly appears that no substantial question is presented

here and that no reversal is warranted.

Because appellant made no showing that a transfer would

be in the interest of justice, we conclude that the district

court did not abuse its discretion in failing to order one.

See Cote v. Wadel, 796 F.2d 981, 984 (7th Cir. 1986); Dubin ___ ____ _____ _____

v. United States, 380 F.2d 813, 816 (5th Cir. 1967) (it is ______________

not in the interest of justice to use 28 U.S.C. 1406(a) to

"aid a non-diligent plaintiff who knowingly files a case in

the wrong district"); see also Mulcahy v. Guertler, 416 _________ _______ ________

F.Supp. 1083, 1086 (D. Mass. 1976).

Appellant's remaining arguments also are without merit.

He never sought leave to amend his complaint, and amendment

would not cure the defects which supported the dismissal.

Further, there is no legal or factual support for his

assertion of judicial bias.

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











-2-






Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer