Smith v. Sheehan
Case Date: 12/28/1995
Court: United States Court of Appeals
Docket No: 95-1683
|
December 28, 1995 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ____________________ No. 95-1683 TIMOTHY SCOTT BAILEY SMITH, ET AL., Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. JANE SHEEHAN, ET AL., Defendants, Appellees. ____________________ APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE [Hon. Gene Carter, U.S. District Judge] ___________________ ____________________ Before Selya, Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges. ______________ ____________________ Timothy Scott Bailey Smith on brief pro se. __________________________ Andrew Ketterer, Attorney General, and Leanne Robbin, Assistant ________________ ______________ Attorney General, on brief for appellees. ____________________ ____________________ Per Curiam. On cross-motions for summary judgment, __________ the district court granted defendants' motion on the merits and dismissed the case. Plaintiffs main challenge on appeal is to the timing, and manner of service, of the defendants' motion. We have carefully reviewed the record and briefs, and see no abuse of discretion in the magistrate's refusal to compel defendants first to file an answer. See Fed. R. Civ. ___ P. 56(b). There was also no prejudice to the plaintiffs in the few days' delay caused by the defendants' mailing of the motion to the wrong address. Plaintiffs' constitutional challenges to events that occurred in the state proceedings after the district court entered its judgment in this case are not properly a subject of this appeal. This court does not have original jurisdiction to entertain such complaints. Seeing no exceptional reason to consider plaintiffs' remaining arguments (one made for the first time on appeal, the others without developed argumentation), the judgment below is affirmed. ________ -2- |