Cole v. Wittman
Case Date: 09/12/1996
Court: United States Court of Appeals
Docket No: 96-1583
|
September 12, 1996 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ____________________ No. 96-1583 RICHARD A. COLE, M.D., Plaintiff, Appellant, v. THOMAS WITTMAN, ET AL., Defendants, Appellees. ____________________ APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge] ___________________ ____________________ Before Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________ Cyr and Stahl, Circuit Judges. ______________ ____________________ Richard A. Cole, M.D. F.A.C.P. on brief pro se. ______________________________ Jennifer L. Johnston and Quinn, Buseck, Leemhuis, Toohey & Kroto, ____________________ ________________________________________ Inc. on brief for appellees Thomas Wittmann, M.D., Vinod Patel, M.D., ____ Edward Overfield, M.D., Chest Diseases of Northwestern Pennsylvania, Saint Vincent Health Center and Saint Vincent Foundation for Health and Human Services. Daniel J. Pastore and The McDonald Group, L.L.P. on brief for __________________ ___________________________ appellees John T. Schaaf, M.D., Hamot Medical Center and Hamot Healthcare Corp. Jeffrey R. Cohen, Wayne, Lazares & Chappell, W. Patrick Delaney, _________________ __________________________ __________________ Dale Huntley and MacDonald, Illig, Jones & Britton LLP on brief for ____________ ______________________________________ appellees MacDonald, Illig, Jones & Britton LLP. Jeffrey R. Cohen and Wayne, Lazares & Chappell on brief for _________________ ____________________________ appellee Millcreek Community Hospital. ____________________ ____________________ Per Curiam. For the purposes of this appeal, we assume, __________ without deciding, that we have jurisdiction to consider the merits of the order dismissing appellant's complaint. In any case, upon careful review of the record and appellate briefs, it clearly appears that no substantial question is presented here and that no reversal is warranted. Because appellant 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 Cote v. Wadel, 796 F.2d 981, 984 (7th Cir. 1986); Dubin ___ ____ _____ _____ v. United States, 380 F.2d 813, 816 (5th Cir. 1967) (it is ______________ not in the interest of justice to use 28 U.S.C. 1406(a) to "aid a non-diligent plaintiff who knowingly files a case in the wrong district"); see also Mulcahy v. Guertler, 416 _________ _______ ________ F.Supp. 1083, 1086 (D. Mass. 1976). Appellant's remaining arguments also are without merit. He never sought leave to amend his complaint, and amendment would not cure the defects which supported the dismissal. Further, there is no legal or factual support for his assertion of judicial bias. Affirmed. See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1. ________ ___ -2- |