Davis v. Wonderland Greyhound
Case Date: 08/28/1996
Court: United States Court of Appeals
Docket No: 96-1604
|
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ____________________ No. 96-1604 FRED DAVIS, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. WONDERLAND GREYHOUND PARK, INC., ET AL., Defendants, Appellees. ____________________ APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. Douglas P. Woodlock, U.S. District Judge] ___________________ ____________________ Before Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________ Cyr and Stahl, Circuit Judges. ______________ ____________________ Fred Davis on brief pro se. __________ Stephen B. Reed and Kearns & Rubin, P.C. on brief for appellees. _______________ ____________________ ____________________ August 27, 1996 ____________________ Per Curiam. Having reviewed the entire record, ___________ including the transcript of the June 30, 1995 truncated deposition at which plaintiff claims he was harassed, we summarily affirm the dismissal of plaintiff's action for the reasons stated in the district court's April 11, 1996 memorandum and order. Plaintiff was not unfairly treated at the deposition and plaintiff was afforded multiple opportunities to complete the deposition. When plaintiff failed without any adequately documented justification to appear for the rescheduled deposition, the court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing plaintiff's action. Affirmed. Loc. R. 27.1. ________ -2- |