Gill v. West
Case Date: 11/29/1995
Court: United States Court of Appeals
Docket No: 95-1600
|
November 29, 1995 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ____________________ No. 95-1600 DONALD GILL, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. DARRELL WEST, ET AL., Defendants, Appellees. ____________________ APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND [Hon. Ernest C. Torres, U.S. District Judge] ___________________ [Hon. Raymond J. Pettine, Senior U.S. District Judge] __________________________ ____________________ Before Selya, Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges. ______________ ____________________ Donald Gill on brief pro se. ___________ Peter J. McGinn, Richard J. Welch and Tillinghast Collins & ________________ __________________ _______________________ Graham on brief for appellee Darrell West in his Official Capacity as ______ an Agent of Brown University and in his Personal Capacity. Henry M. Swan and Davis, Kilmarx, Swan & Kohlenberg on brief for ______________ __________________________________ appellee John Hazen White. Stephen H. Burke and Temkin & Associates Ltd. on brief for __________________ ___________________________ appellee Narragansett Media, Inc. Joseph V. Cavanagh, Jr., Raymond A. Marcaccio and Blish & __________________________ ______________________ ________ Cavanagh on brief for appellees The Providence Journal Company and ________ WLNE-TV Channel 6. ____________________ ____________________ Per Curiam. We have reviewed the parties' briefs and __________ the record on appeal. There was neither error nor abuse of discretion in the district court's (i) resolution of appellant's motion to recuse and simultaneous amendment of its previous order to correct its misapprehension that it had earlier dismissed a certain defendant nor (ii) denial of an enlargement of time in which to respond to the show cause order. We conclude that the amended complaint was properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, failure to state a claim upon which relief might be granted, and/or failure to make service. The judgment of dismissal is affirmed. ______________________________________ -2- |