Zagranski v. Krajnak, et al.,
Case Date: 05/17/1995
Court: United States Court of Appeals
Docket No: 94-1993
|
May 17, 1995 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ____________________ No. 94-1993 No. 94-2244 RICHARD M. ZAGRANSKI, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. SUZANNE KRAJNAK, ET AL., Defendants, Appellees. ____________________ APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. Joseph L. Tauro, U.S. District Judge] ___________________ ____________________ Before Cyr, Boudin and Stahl, Circuit Judges. ______________ ____________________ Richard M. Zagranski on brief pro se. ____________________ George W. Marion and Bulkley, Richardson and Gelinas on brief for ________________ ________________________________ appellees Suzanne Krajnak, Joseph Krajnak, Stephen Pedemonti, James M. Smith, Public Storage Properties XVII, Ltd., Public Storage Management and Harvey Lenkin. Thomas E. Argenio, Associate City Solicitor, Chicopee Law ___________________ Department, on brief for appellees Edmund Dowd, Joseph Wilk and William Hurley. Scott Harshbarger, Attorney General, and Elisabeth J. Medvedow, _________________ ______________________ Assistant Attorney General, on brief for appellees Judd J. Carhart, W. Michael Ryan, Bertha Josephson, Norman Roberts and Brian Kennedy. Brian J. Rogal and Timothy M. Burke on brief for appellee Gerard ______________ _________________ Gagne. L. Jeffrey Meehan, Kevin M. Walkowski, and Doherty, Wallace, __________________ ____________________ __________________ Pillsbury & Murphy, P.C. on brief for appellee James M. Smith. ________________________ Alan Seewald, Assistant Town Counsel, and Ritchie, Ennis, Seewald ____________ _______________________ & Collins, P.C. on brief for appellees Timothy M. Sullivan and Stephen _______________ Zahn. ____________________ ____________________ Per Curiam. We have reviewed carefully the record in __________ this case and the briefs of the parties. We affirm the dismissal of appellant's complaint essentially for the reasons given by the district court in its memorandum and order, dated August 10, 1994. Affirmed. ________ -3- |