Cole v. Fabiano
Case Date: 07/18/1996
Court: United States Court of Appeals
Docket No: 96-1249
|
July 18, 1996 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ____________________ No. 96-1249 RICHARD A. COLE, ET AL., Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. MARIA FABIANO, ET AL., Defendants, Appellants. ____________________ APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. Reginald C. Lindsay, U.S. District Judge] ___________________ ____________________ Before Selya, Cyr and Boudin, Circuit Judges. ______________ ____________________ Richard A. Cole, M.D. F.A.C.P. on brief pro se. ______________________________ Hugh C. Carlin, Gross, Shuman, Brizdle & Gilfillan, P.C., Lee T. ______________ _________________________________________ _______ Gesmer, and Lucash, Gesmer & Updegrove on brief for appellees. ______ __________________________ ____________________ ____________________ Per Curiam. Upon careful review of the record and __________ appellate briefs, it clearly appears that no substantial question is presented for review. Because appellant did not ask the district court for a transfer and made no showing that a transfer would be in the interest of justice, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to order one. See 28 U.S.C. 1406(a); Cote v. Wadel, 796 F.2d 981, 984 ___ ____ _____ (7th Cir. 1986); see also Mulcahy v. Guertler, 416 F.Supp. _________ _______ ________ 1083, 1086 (D.Mass. 1976). Appellant's remaining arguments likewise are without merit: he had ample opportunity to respond to defendants' motion to dismiss; he never sought leave to amend his complaint, and, in any case, amendment would not cure the defects in venue; and neither defendants' credibility on the issue of service, nor appellant's failure to obtain a copy of the local rules, suggests to us any reason to reverse. Affirmed. See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1. ________ ___ -3- |