[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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-