Lewis v. Textron Automotive
Case Date: 12/16/1997
Court: United States Court of Appeals
Docket No: 97-1751
|
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ____________________ No. 97-1751 ALLAN LEWIS, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. TEXTRON AUTOMOTIVE INTERIORS AND JAMES D. HOUSTON, Defendants, Appellees. ____________________ APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE [Hon. James R. Muirhead, U.S. District Judge] ___________________ ____________________ Before Lynch, Circuit Judge, _____________ Aldrich and Campbell, Senior Circuit Judges. _____________________ ____________________ Allan Lewis on brief pro se. ___________ Don A. Banta, Ann L. Crane and Banta, Cox & Hennessy on brief for ____________ ____________ _____________________ appellees. ____________________ December 15, 1997 ____________________ Per Curiam. We have carefully reviewed the briefs and __________ record on appeal and affirm the judgment below. The only issue the appellant argues in his brief, thus the only matter before us,1 is whether there was a genuine issue that a plant 1 closing caused layoffs triggering the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act. 29 U.S.C. 2101-2109. When _ the appellee presented evidence that a plant closing did not cause the layoffs of which the appellant complained, it was incumbent upon the appellant to adduce contrary evidence. Celotex Corporation v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1989). He ___________________ _______ did not do so.2 2 Affirmed. Loc. R. 27.1. ________ ____________________ 1 See United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1, 17 (1st Cir. 1 ___ _____________ _______ 1990). 2 Accordingly, appellant's motions for attorney's fees and 2 pre-argument conference are also denied. -2- |