Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Gill v. West, 95-1600 (1995)

Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Number: 95-1600
Filed: Nov. 29, 1995
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: DARRELL WEST, ET AL., ___________, Peter J. McGinn, Richard J. Welch and Tillinghast Collins , ________________ __________________ _______________________, Graham on brief for appellee Darrell West in his Official Capacity as, ______, an Agent of Brown University and in his Personal Capacity.
USCA1 Opinion




November 29, 1995 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT


____________________


No. 95-1600

DONALD GILL,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

DARRELL WEST, ET AL.,

Defendants, Appellees.
____________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

[Hon. Ernest C. Torres, U.S. District Judge] ___________________
[Hon. Raymond J. Pettine, Senior U.S. District Judge] __________________________
____________________

Before

Selya, Stahl and Lynch,
Circuit Judges. ______________

____________________

Donald Gill on brief pro se. ___________
Peter J. McGinn, Richard J. Welch and Tillinghast Collins & ________________ __________________ _______________________
Graham on brief for appellee Darrell West in his Official Capacity as ______
an Agent of Brown University and in his Personal Capacity.
Henry M. Swan and Davis, Kilmarx, Swan & Kohlenberg on brief for ______________ __________________________________
appellee John Hazen White.
Stephen H. Burke and Temkin & Associates Ltd. on brief for __________________ ___________________________
appellee Narragansett Media, Inc.
Joseph V. Cavanagh, Jr., Raymond A. Marcaccio and Blish & __________________________ ______________________ ________
Cavanagh on brief for appellees The Providence Journal Company and ________
WLNE-TV Channel 6.

____________________


____________________



















Per Curiam. We have reviewed the parties' briefs and __________

the record on appeal. There was neither error nor abuse of

discretion in the district court's (i) resolution of

appellant's motion to recuse and simultaneous amendment of

its previous order to correct its misapprehension that it had

earlier dismissed a certain defendant nor (ii) denial of an

enlargement of time in which to respond to the show cause

order.

We conclude that the amended complaint was properly

dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, failure to

state a claim upon which relief might be granted, and/or

failure to make service.

The judgment of dismissal is affirmed. ______________________________________



























-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