Solimine v. Ortho McNeil
Case Date: 05/30/1995
Court: United States Court of Appeals
Docket No: 94-1944
|
May 30, 1995 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ____________________ No. 94-1944 ANTHONY SOLIMINE, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. ORTHO MCNEIL, ET AL., Defendants, Appellees. ____________________ APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. Rya W. Zobel, U.S. District Judge] ___________________ ____________________ Before Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________ Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges. ______________ ____________________ Anthony Solimine on brief pro se. ________________ ____________________ ____________________ Per Curiam. We have reviewed appellant's brief and the __________ record on appeal. We affirm essentially for the reasons stated in the district court's memorandum, dated April 26, 1994. Appellant's "motion for leave to file up to ten (10) page memorandum on supplemental authorities and an appendix" and "motion for leave to file brief memorandum of supplemental authorities" are denied. They are extremely _______ tardy and, in any event, present nothing of merit. Appellant's motion for oral argument is denied. _______ The district court's order of dismissal is affirmed. _________ -2- |