[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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-