Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Jackson v. Cowell, 96-1813 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Number: 96-1813 Visitors: 6
Filed: Jan. 31, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: ANN COWELL, ET AL., _______________, Nancy Ankers White, Special Assistant Attorney General, and, ____________________, Richard C. McFarland, Senior Litigation Attorney, Department of, ______________________, Correction, on brief for appellees.for the reasons stated in the district court's opinion.
USCA1 Opinion












[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________


No. 96-1813

ANTHONY JACKSON,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

ANN COWELL, ET AL.,

Defendants, Appellees.

____________________


APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[Hon. Patti B. Saris, U.S. District Judge] ___________________

____________________

Before

Selya, Boudin and Lynch,
Circuit Judges. ______________

____________________

Anthony Jackson on brief pro se. _______________
Nancy Ankers White, Special Assistant Attorney General, and ____________________
Richard C. McFarland, Senior Litigation Attorney, Department of ______________________
Correction, on brief for appellees.


____________________

January 31, 1997
____________________

















Per Curiam. Plaintiff brought a civil action ___________

under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that he was transferred to

Old Colony Correctional Center ("OCCC") in retaliation for

his litigation activities, and that prison officials at OCCC

interfered in various ways with his access to the courts.

Following substantial discovery, the magistrate recommended

granting defendants' motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff

objected, and the district judge undertook an extensive

review. In a detailed memorandum opinion the court concluded

that plaintiff's proof failed to create a genuine issue of

fact as to one or more of the elements necessary to sustain

each of his claims.

Upon a de novo review of the judgment and the __ ____

issues raised in the parties' briefs, we affirm substantially ______

for the reasons stated in the district court's opinion. See ___

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