Cataldo v. Roberts, et al.,
Case Date: 10/06/1997
Court: United States Court of Appeals
Docket No: 97-1469
|
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ____________________ No. 97-1469 RALPH J. CATALDO, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. MICHAEL ROBERTS, ET AL.,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- |