USCA1 Opinion
November 16, 1995 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 94-2049
VIRGINIA RONAN,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Defendant, Appellee.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Richard G. Stearns, U.S. District Judge]
___________________
____________________
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge,
___________
Cyr and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
______________
____________________
Virginia G. Ronan, on brief pro se.
_________________
Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, and Cheryl L.
_________________ __________
Conner, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.
______
____________________
____________________
Per Curiam. In an earlier decision, this court
___________
reversed a summary judgment against appellant Ronan and
remanded for a trial her claims of gender and age
discrimination in the denial of a promotional opportunity by
her employer, the EPA. Ronan v. U.S. Environmental
_____ ___________________
Protection Agency, No. 89-1566, slip op. at 3 (1st Cir. Mar.
__________________
27, 1990) (per curiam). Following a bench trial held over a
___ ______
three day period, the district court awarded judgment in
favor of the EPA. The court found that while Ronan had
established a prima facie case, she had not shown that the
EPA's proof of neutral, non-discriminatory reasons for the
decision concealed a prohibited discriminatory motive or act.
In short, the trial court found credible the testimony of the
EPA employees who made the decision.
Having carefully reviewed the transcripts and
briefs, we find no clear error in the court's factual
findings. See Lussier v. Runyon, 50 F.3d 1103, 1111 (1st
___ _______ ______
Cir. 1995) (district court's factual findings in a bench
trial are reviewed only for "clear error"). The trial
judge's choice between plausible competing inferences is
entitled to deference on review, especially when the choice
is informed by an assessment of the demeanor and credibility
of the witnesses. See Anderson v. City of Bessemer, 470 U.S.
___ ________ ________________
564, 573 (1985); Cumpiano v. Banco Santander P.R., 902 F.2d
________ ____________________
148, 152 (1st Cir. 1990); Williams v. Poulos, 11 F.3d 271,
________ ______
278 (1st Cir. 1993) (credibility).
We find no support in the record for appellant's
bald assertions that the court failed to conduct an impartial
trial, did not rule on her motions, and unfairly disfavored
her cause in evidentiary rulings and the denial of appointed
counsel. To the contrary, the record reflects that the court
ruled on every motion, conducted a fair and orderly hearing
without prejudicial error, and was solicitous of appellant's
pro se status throughout. No exceptional reason requiring an
___ __
appointment of counsel is suggested. We also see no error in
the denial of appellant's jury demand in light of Landgraf v.
________
USI Film Prods., 114 S. Ct. 1483 (1994), nor in the dismissal
_______________
of her attempt to retry a retaliation claim that had been
rejected in a collateral forum, and never appealed.
Appellant lists as error some forty-eight district
court orders, many of which were entered prior to the summary
judgment appeal and remand of her claims for trial. We fail
to see the relevance of these early procedural rulings to the
issues on this appeal. Any perceived substantive errors were
waived, at the latest with appellant's filing of an amended
complaint after remand. For like reason, we find no abuse in
the court's rejection of appellant's motions to supplement
the record with archival documents relating to irrelevant
early rulings.
We have reviewed the record with care. It contains
all the docketed items needed for a thorough airing of the
-3-
issues. We appreciate appellant's concern about a missing
partial transcript containing the testimony of witness
William Chenoweth (Dkt. 160). Its absence, however, has
caused her no prejudice in this court. A full transcript of
the proceedings was certified to us on appeal. Chenoweth's
testimony, in its entirety, has been considered by the court
along with the rest of the record. The occasional docketing
errors to which appellant points, and mistakes in the EPA's
appellate filings, also have caused no prejudice to
appellant.
Accordingly, the judgment below is affirmed.
________
Appellant's motion "for Correction and Modification of the
Record," and "Petition for Judicial Opinion on Denial of
Constitutional Rights," including attachments labelled as
motions, "In Objection to Harassment and Violations by the
U.S. District Court and U.S. Court of Appeals," "In Objection
to Harassment and Abusive Use of Power by Clerks and Judges"
and "In Objection to Denial of Access to United States
Courts," are denied.
______
-4-
