USCA1 Opinion
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 95-2326
SHEIKH BASHIR AHMED, M.D.,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
BERKSHIRE MEDICAL CENTER, INC.,
Defendant, Appellee.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Frank H. Freedman, Senior U.S. District Judge]
__________________________
____________________
Before
Selya, Cyr and Boudin,
Circuit Judges.
______________
____________________
Dr. Sheikh Bashir Ahmed on brief pro se.
_______________________
John F. Rogers, Kevin M. Kinne and Cain, Hibbard, Myers & Cook on
______________ _______________ ___________________________
brief for appellee.
____________________
August 21, 1996
____________________
Per Curiam. In 1992, plaintiff Sheikh Bashir Ahmed,
___________
M.D. was discharged from his one-year term of employment as a
resident in internal medicine at defendant Berkshire Medical
Center, Inc., ostensibly because of unsatisfactory job
performance. Plaintiff responded by filing the instant
action in which he complained, inter alia, of national origin
__________
discrimination, denial of due process and breach of contract.
Some ten months later, while in the midst of discovery,
plaintiff moved for a preliminary injunction reinstating him
to the residency position pending final disposition of his
allegations. From the district court's denial of such
request, plaintiff now appeals on an interlocutory basis. He
also seeks to appeal from a district court order denying him
leave to amend his complaint.
We perceive no error in the district court's decision to
deny preliminary injunctive relief. The court applied the
proper rule of law, having invoked the four-part test
governing such determinations. See, e.g., Narragansett
___ ____ ____________
Indian Tribe v. Guilbert, 934 F.2d 4, 5 (1st Cir. 1991).
_____________ ________
Accordingly, "[t]he only real question is whether the
district court misused [its] discretion in evaluating the
circumstances and calibrating the scales." Independent Oil &
_________________
Chem. Workers of Quincy, Inc. v. Procter & Gamble Mfg. Co.,
______________________________ __________________________
864 F.2d 927, 929 (1st Cir. 1988); accord, e.g., Conservation
______ ____ ____________
Law Foundation, Inc. v. Busey, 79 F.3d 1250, 1271 (1st Cir.
____________________ _____
-2-
1996) (taking note of the lower courts' "broad discretion" in
this regard). On the basis of the limited record before it,
the district court concluded that plaintiff had not
demonstrated a probability of success on the merits, that he
had not established irreparable harm, and that the balance of
equities and the public interest both tilted in favor of
denying injunctive relief. Having reviewed the record in
full, and having scrutinized the court's findings "under a
relatively deferential glass," Procter & Gamble, 864 F.2d at
_________________
929, we find no abuse of discretion.1
1
Plaintiff insists that his eventual success at trial is
a foregone conclusion. Yet much of the evidence on which he
relies is conclusory or otherwise inadmissible. It turns out
that the parties' respective evidentiary submissions, when
juxtaposed, do little to resolve the underlying factual
disputes, particularly concerning the rationale for
plaintiff's termination.2 And the district court cannot be
2
faulted for concluding that, until the allegations of
unsatisfactory job performance have been resolved,
____________________
1 Given our disposition of the merits, we need not
1
address defendant's contention that jurisdiction is lacking
under 28 U.S.C. 1292(a)(1) to review this ruling. See,
___
e.g., Narragansett Indian Tribe, 934 F.2d at 8 n.5.
____ _________________________
2 With respect to his due process claim, plaintiff
2
objects that the lower court overlooked an allegation of
state action in his complaint. That such an allegation does
appear therein does not disturb the conclusion that, on the
present record, plaintiff has not established a likelihood of
success with respect to any of his claims.
-3-
plaintiff's reinstatement to a position "with responsibility
for life and death decisions," Order at 8, might adversely
affect the public interest.
Plaintiff's appeal from the denial of his motion to
amend falters on a different basis: we lack jurisdiction at
this juncture to review such an order. It is well settled
that "denial of a request to amend a complaint is not usually
appealable as an interlocutory matter." Kartell v. Blue
_______ ____
Shield of Massachusetts, Inc., 687 F.2d 543, 551 (1st Cir.
______________________________
1982); accord, e.g., 15A Charles Wright, Arthur Miller &
______ ____
Edward Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure 3914.1, at
_______________________________
491 & n.7 (1992 & '96 Supp.) (citing cases). Nothing in the
instant case calls for an exception to this rule. Plaintiff
can obtain effective review of the court's ruling in this
regard on appeal from final judgment.
For these reasons, the order denying the motion for a
preliminary injunction is affirmed. The appeal from the
________
order denying leave to amend the complaint is dismissed,
_________
without prejudice, for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
So ordered.
__________
-4-
