USCA1 Opinion
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 96-2243
FRIEDRICH LU,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
DAVID F. HADLOCK, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. George A. O'Toole, Jr., U.S. District Judge]
___________________
____________________
Before
Selya, Circuit Judge,
_____________
Cyr, Senior Circuit Judge,
____________________
and Boudin, Circuit Judge.
_____________
____________________
Friedrich Lu on brief pro se.
____________
George A. Berman, Deirdre M. Giblin and Posternak, Blankstein &
_________________ __________________ _______________________
Lund, L.L.P. on brief for appellees Jeffrey C. Turk, David F. Hadlock,
____________
Karen Schultz Breda, George A. Berman, Andrea F. Nuciforo, Jr., and
Posternak, Blankstein & Lund, L.L.P.
Russell F. Conn and Conn, Kavanaugh, Rosenthal, Peisch & Ford,
________________ ____________________________________________
L.L.P. on brief for appellees Michael J. Powers, Russell F. Conn,
______
Maria E. DeLuzio, and Conn, Kavanaugh, Rosenthal, Peisch & Ford,
L.L.P.
Laurence M. Starr on brief for appellee Laurence M. Starr.
_________________
Ronald L. Brandt on brief for appellees Ronald L. Brandt and
_________________
Brandt, Kramer & Figman.
Cameron F. Kerry, Michael J. Gill and Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris,
________________ _______________ ___________________________
Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. on brief for appellees Richard Portal, Cameron
_______________________
F. Kerry, Michael J. Gill, Wayne P. Godin and Mintz, Levin, Cohn,
Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
Acheson H. Callaghan, Jr., Kenneth W. Salinger and Palmer & Dodge
_________________________ ____________________ ______________
L.L.P. on brief for appellees Gerald T. Anglin and Tommasino &
______
Tommasino.
Jeffrey C. Turk and McCullough, Stievater & Polvere on brief for
_______________ ________________________________
appellees Willard S. Stievater and McCullough, Stievater & Polvere.
____________________
FEBRUARY 28, 1997
____________________
-3-
Per Curiam. For the reasons stated in the district
___________
court order, appellant's complaint properly was dismissed for
want of federal subject matter jurisdiction. Further, we
perceive no error or abuse of discretion in the district
court's summary rejection of appellant's post-dismissal
motions for reconsideration, recusal, and amendment of the
complaint. And we find no merit in appellant's additional
contentions regarding discovery, sanctions, and attorney
conduct.
The judgment is affirmed. See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.
________ ___
Appellant's motions for default and expedited review are
denied, as are his requests for costs and for publication of
______
this opinion.
-3-
