Ferguson v. UA Local 4
Case Date: 04/01/1994
Court: United States Court of Appeals
Docket No: 93-1412
|
March 31, 1994 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ___________________ Nos. 93-1412 93-1580 WILLIAM FERGUSON, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. PLUMBERS & PIPEFITTERS LOCAL UNION #4, ET AL., Defendants, Appellees. __________________ APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. Robert E. Keeton, U.S. District Judge] ___________________ ___________________ Before Breyer, Chief Judge, ___________ Torruella and Selya, Circuit Judges. ______________ ___________________ William V. Ferguson Jr. on brief pro se. ______________________ Robert M. Cheverie on Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion __________________ for Summary Disposition for appellee. __________________ __________________ Per Curiam. Plaintiff William Ferguson appeals a __________ district court judgment which dismissed his pro se complaint ___ __ for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Having thoroughly reviewed the record and the plaintiff's briefs and reply briefs, we are persuaded that the district court judgment is correct. Moreover, the plaintiff's multiple filings demonstrate that this suit is patently frivolous and thus also subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. 1915(d). See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, ___ _______ ________ 327-28 (1990).1 Accordingly, the defendants' motion for summary affirmance is allowed and the judgment of the _______ district court is affirmed.2 ________ ____________________ 1. Thus, there also was no error in the district court's denial of Ferguson's motion for a preliminary injunction. 2. Ferguson's motion to adduce additional evidence is denied. -2- |