USCA1 Opinion
June 8, 1995
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 94-1988
MARION FARRELL NOONE, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs, Appellants,
v.
NEW ENGLAND TELEPHONE, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
____________________
No. 94-2130
MARION FARRELL NOONE, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs, Appellants,
v.
NEW ENGLAND TELEPHONE, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
____________________
APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Walter J. Skinner, Senior U.S. District Judge]
__________________________
_____________________
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge,
___________
Selya and Cyr, Circuit Judges.
______________
____________________
Marion Farrell Noone and Joseph F. Noone, III on brief pro se.
____________________ ____________________
Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, and Susan G. Winkler,
________________ _________________
Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for defendants/appellees,
Pat Hynes, Paul Desmond, Martin Marciniak, Mark Mahar, Kenneth
Varriale, Paul Flynn, and Thomas Lyster.
John V. Woodard and Powers & Hall Professional Corporation, on
________________ ________________________________________
brief for defendants/appellees Middleburgh Telephone Company, Randall
F. Becker and Barbara Becker.
Pamela A. Smith on brief for defendants/appellees, New York
_________________
Telephone Company, Richard A. Jalkut and Daniel J. Murphy.
Pamela A. Smith on brief for defendants/appellees, New England
________________
Telephone and Telegraph Company, Paul O'Brien, Robert Jacobs, Nancy
Kinton and William McManus.
Philip J. Callan, Jr, Michael K. Callan, Kevin M. Walkowski, and
____________________ __________________ __________________
Doherty, Wallace, Pillsbury & Murphy, P.C., on brief for
___________________________________________________
defendants/appellees, James Collins, Harry Miles and Growhoski,
Callahan & Miles.
____________________
____________________
Per Curiam. We have reviewed the parties' briefs and
__________
the record on appeal. We deny appellants' motions to strike
the briefs of the federal defendants-appellees, New England
Telephone Company, and New York Telephone Company.
We affirm essentially for the reasons stated in the
district court's memoranda and orders, dated February 23,
1994, June 8, 1994, and October 20, 1994.
Affirmed.
_________
-3-
