Hathaway v. City of Claremont
Case Date: 04/03/1997
Court: United States Court of Appeals
Docket No: 96-2193
|
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ____________________ No. 96-2193 SHAUN HATHAWAY, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. CITY OF CLAREMONT, Defendant, Appellee. ____________________ APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE [Hon. Joseph A. DiClerico, U.S. District Judge] ___________________ ____________________ Before Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________ Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge, ____________________ and Boudin, Circuit Judge. _____________ ____________________ Donald L. Lader, Jr. and Law Offices of Michael C. Shklar on ____________________ ________________________________ brief for appellant. Edward B. Mulligan, IV and Gallagher, Callahan & Gartrell, P.A. ______________________ ____________________________________ on brief for appellee. ____________________ MARCH 27, 1997 ____________________ Per Curiam. The judgment is affirmed substantially for __________ the reasons enumerated by Chief Judge DiClerico in his order dated September 16, 1996. Appellant has advanced no reason to question the careful analysis of claim-preclusion principles there set forth. The contention that appellee waived or forfeited such defense by failing to assert it in timely fashion, see, e.g., Calderon Rosado v. General Elec. ___ ____ _______________ _____________ Circuit Breakers, Inc., 805 F.2d 1085, 1087 (1st Cir. 1986) ______________________ (citing Restatement (Second) of Judgments 26(1)(a)), is raised for the first time on appeal. We thus review that claim for "plain error" indicative of a "clear miscarriage of justice." Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Public Serv. Comm'n, __________________________ ___________________ 906 F.2d 25, 40 (1st Cir. 1990) (internal quotation omitted). We see neither plain error nor a miscarriage of justice. Affirmed. See Loc. R. 27.1. ____________________________ -2- |