Noone v. New England
Case Date: 06/08/1995
Court: United States Court of Appeals
Docket No: 94-1988
|
June 8, 1995 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ____________________ No. 94-1988 MARION FARRELL NOONE, ET AL., Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. NEW ENGLAND TELEPHONE, ET AL., Defendants, Appellees. ____________________ No. 94-2130 MARION FARRELL NOONE, ET AL., Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. NEW ENGLAND TELEPHONE, ET AL., Defendants, Appellees. ____________________ APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. Walter J. Skinner, Senior U.S. District Judge] __________________________ _____________________ Before Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________ Selya and Cyr, Circuit Judges. ______________ ____________________ Marion Farrell Noone and Joseph F. Noone, III on brief pro se. ____________________ ____________________ Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, and Susan G. Winkler, ________________ _________________ Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for defendants/appellees, Pat Hynes, Paul Desmond, Martin Marciniak, Mark Mahar, Kenneth Varriale, Paul Flynn, and Thomas Lyster. John V. Woodard and Powers & Hall Professional Corporation, on ________________ ________________________________________ brief for defendants/appellees Middleburgh Telephone Company, Randall F. Becker and Barbara Becker. Pamela A. Smith on brief for defendants/appellees, New York _________________ Telephone Company, Richard A. Jalkut and Daniel J. Murphy. Pamela A. Smith on brief for defendants/appellees, New England ________________ Telephone and Telegraph Company, Paul O'Brien, Robert Jacobs, Nancy Kinton and William McManus. Philip J. Callan, Jr, Michael K. Callan, Kevin M. Walkowski, and ____________________ __________________ __________________ Doherty, Wallace, Pillsbury & Murphy, P.C., on brief for ___________________________________________________ defendants/appellees, James Collins, Harry Miles and Growhoski, Callahan & Miles. ____________________ ____________________ Per Curiam. We have reviewed the parties' briefs and __________ the record on appeal. We deny appellants' motions to strike the briefs of the federal defendants-appellees, New England Telephone Company, and New York Telephone Company. We affirm essentially for the reasons stated in the district court's memoranda and orders, dated February 23, 1994, June 8, 1994, and October 20, 1994. Affirmed. _________ -3- |