Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Cataldo v. Roberts, 97-1469 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Number: 97-1469 Visitors: 4
Filed: Oct. 06, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: MICHAEL ROBERTS, ET AL., William R. Fisher, Ivy L. Frignoca and Monaghan, Leahy, Hochadel, _________________ _______________ __________________________, Libby on brief for appellees Edward Reynolds and Penobscot County, _______, Sheriff's Department.the district judge were entirely appropriate.
USCA1 Opinion












[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________


No. 97-1469

RALPH J. CATALDO,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL ROBERTS, ET AL.,

Defendants, Appellees.

____________________


APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

[Hon. Gene Carter, U.S. District Judge] ___________________
[Hon. David M. Cohen, U.S. Magistrate Judge] _____________________

____________________

Before

Selya, Boudin and Lynch,
Circuit Judges. ______________

____________________

Ralph J. Cataldo on brief pro se. ________________
Andrew Ketterer, Attorney General, and Peter J. Brann, Assistant _______________ ______________
Attorney General, on brief for appellees Michael Roberts and Michael
Morrison.
William R. Fisher, Ivy L. Frignoca and Monaghan, Leahy, Hochadel _________________ _______________ __________________________
& Libby on brief for appellees Edward Reynolds and Penobscot County _______
Sheriff's Department.
Harold C. Hamilton and Logan, Kurr & Hamilton on brief for ____________________ ________________________
appellee BettyLynn Trusz.

____________________
October 6, 1997
____________________













Per Curiam. We have carefully reviewed the record ___________

and conclude that the various orders of dismissal entered by

the district judge were entirely appropriate. We also

conclude that, as to the remaining claims against the

remaining defendants, the magistrate judge appropriately

granted summary judgment for the reasons explained at length

in his memorandum opinion. The new evidence that the

appellant proffers cannot be considered on appeal, see United ___ ______

States v. Kobrosky, 711 F.2d 449, 456 (1st Cir. 1983), and, ______ ________

thus, cannot affect the outcome. Similarly, the new issues

that the appellant seeks to raise for the first time are not

properly before us. See Martinez v. Colon, 54 F.3d 980, 987 ___ ________ _____

(1st Cir.), cert. denied, 116 s. Ct. 515 (1995). Finally, _____ ______

certain skeletal allegations of error, presented without any

developed argumentation, do not warrant review. See United ___ ______

States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1, 17 (1st Cir. 1990). ______ _______

Consequently, they do not warrant comment here.

We need go no further. The judgment below is

summarily affirmed. See 1st Cir. R. 27.1. ___

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