Dickinson v. Ridlon
Case Date: 10/10/1996
Court: United States Court of Appeals
Docket No: 96-1693
|
October 10, 1996 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ____________________ No. 96-1693 NORMAN E. DICKINSON, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. WESLEY RIDLON, ET AL., Defendants, Appellees. ____________________ APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE [Hon. Morton A. Brody, U.S. District Judge] ___________________ ____________________ Before Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________ Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges. ______________ ____________________ Norman E. Dickinson on brief pro se. ___________________ Monaghan, Leahy, Hochadel, & Libby, William R. Fisher, and Ivy L. __________________________________ __________________ ______ Frignoca on brief for appellees. ________ ____________________ ____________________ Per Curiam. The magistrate-judge's denial of ___________ appellant's motion to postpone the final pretrial conference was tantamount to an order to appear at that conference. Appellant thereafter was not justified in failing to appear regardless whether appellant subjectively felt prepared for the conference or not. In these circumstances, the court did not abuse its discretion when appellant failed to attend the April 8, 1996 conference. That appellant was not expressly advised that failure to appear could result in dismissal does not require a different result. Any belief on appellant's part that he could flout the scheduling order in the manner he did was completely unjustified. Affirmed. Loc. R. 27.1. ________ -2- |