Giambattista v. Doherty
Case Date: 03/27/1996
Court: United States Court of Appeals
Docket No: 95-2030
|
March 27, 1996 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ____________________ No. 95-2030 C. D. DI GIAMBATTISTA, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. MICHAEL J. DOHERTY, ET AL., Defendants, Appellees. ____________________ APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. A. David Mazzone, U.S. District Judge] ___________________ [Hon. Reginald C. Lindsay, U.S. District Judge] ___________________ ____________________ Before Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________ Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges. ______________ ____________________ C. D. Di Giambattista on brief pro se. _____________________ ____________________ ____________________ Per Curiam. The judgment is affirmed substantially for __________ the reasons enumerated by the district court in its pair of decisions dated November 2, 1993 and September 1, 1995, respectively. We add that plaintiff has proffered no grounds for concluding that Judge Mazzone's refusal to recuse himself from the case (prior to its reassignment for unrelated reasons) constituted an abuse of discretion. See, e.g., Town ___ ____ ____ of Norfolk v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 968 F.2d __________ _____________________________________ 1438, 1460 (1st Cir. 1992). Nor has he pointed to a genuine issue of material fact that would preclude the award of summary judgment in favor of defendants Henry and Doherty; as Judge Lindsay explained, the evidence was undisputed that plaintiff was arrested as a result of his abusive behavior. Plaintiff's remaining contentions, to the extent they have been advanced in something more than a "perfunctory manner," McIntosh v. Antonio, 71 F.3d 29, 38 (1st Cir. 1995) (quoting ________ _______ Ryan v. Royal Ins. Co. of America, 916 F.2d 731, 734 (1st ____ ___________________________ Cir. 1990)), prove equally unavailing. Affirmed. See Loc. R. 27.1. ____________________________ -2- |