Lu v. Hadlock
Case Date: 02/28/1997
Court: United States Court of Appeals
Docket No: 96-2243
|
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ____________________ No. 96-2243 FRIEDRICH LU, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. DAVID F. HADLOCK, ET AL., Defendants, Appellees. ____________________ APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. George A. O'Toole, Jr., U.S. District Judge] ___________________ ____________________ Before Selya, Circuit Judge, _____________ Cyr, Senior Circuit Judge, ____________________ and Boudin, Circuit Judge. _____________ ____________________ Friedrich Lu on brief pro se. ____________ George A. Berman, Deirdre M. Giblin and Posternak, Blankstein & _________________ __________________ _______________________ Lund, L.L.P. on brief for appellees Jeffrey C. Turk, David F. Hadlock, ____________ Karen Schultz Breda, George A. Berman, Andrea F. Nuciforo, Jr., and Posternak, Blankstein & Lund, L.L.P. Russell F. Conn and Conn, Kavanaugh, Rosenthal, Peisch & Ford, ________________ ____________________________________________ L.L.P. on brief for appellees Michael J. Powers, Russell F. Conn, ______ Maria E. DeLuzio, and Conn, Kavanaugh, Rosenthal, Peisch & Ford, L.L.P. Laurence M. Starr on brief for appellee Laurence M. Starr. _________________ Ronald L. Brandt on brief for appellees Ronald L. Brandt and _________________ Brandt, Kramer & Figman. Cameron F. Kerry, Michael J. Gill and Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, ________________ _______________ ___________________________ Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. on brief for appellees Richard Portal, Cameron _______________________ F. Kerry, Michael J. Gill, Wayne P. Godin and Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. Acheson H. Callaghan, Jr., Kenneth W. Salinger and Palmer & Dodge _________________________ ____________________ ______________ L.L.P. on brief for appellees Gerald T. Anglin and Tommasino & ______ Tommasino. Jeffrey C. Turk and McCullough, Stievater & Polvere on brief for _______________ ________________________________ appellees Willard S. Stievater and McCullough, Stievater & Polvere. ____________________ FEBRUARY 28, 1997 ____________________ -3- Per Curiam. For the reasons stated in the district ___________ court order, appellant's complaint properly was dismissed for want of federal subject matter jurisdiction. Further, we perceive no error or abuse of discretion in the district court's summary rejection of appellant's post-dismissal motions for reconsideration, recusal, and amendment of the complaint. And we find no merit in appellant's additional contentions regarding discovery, sanctions, and attorney conduct. The judgment is affirmed. See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1. ________ ___ Appellant's motions for default and expedited review are denied, as are his requests for costs and for publication of ______ this opinion. -3- |