Atkins v. Raytheon
Case Date: 03/29/1996
Court: United States Court of Appeals
Docket No: 95-1993
|
March 29, 1996 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ____________________ No. 95-1993 JOHN M. ATKINS, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. RAYTHEON CORP., Defendant, Appellee. ____________________ APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. Douglas P. Woodlock, U.S. District Judge] ___________________ ____________________ Before Torruella, Chief Judge ___________ Stahl and Boudin, Circuit Judges. ______________ ____________________ John M. Atkins on brief pro se. ______________ David C. Casey, Elena E. Salzman and Peckham, Lobel, Casey, ______________ ________________ _______________________ Prince & Tye on brief for appellee. ____________ ____________________ ____________________ Per Curiam. On appeal from an adverse summary ___________ judgment, appellant assigns a single error: that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f). After a careful review of the record, we see no abuse of the court's considerable discretion to manage pretrial proceedings. See ___ Carreiro v. Rhodes Gill & Co., Ltd., 68 F.3d 1443, 1446 (1st ________ _______________________ Cir. 1995). Appellant offered no basis to believe that further discovery would raise a trialworthy issue. Id. at ___ 1449. Affirmed. ________ -2- |