[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
No. 97-1226
ARTHUR D'AMARIO, III,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
FRANK J. RUSSO, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
[Hon. Ronald R. Lagueux, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge,
Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
and Lynch, Circuit Judge.
Arthur D'Amario, III, on brief pro se.
December 5, 1997
Per Curiam. Arthur D'Amario, III, has appealed an order
of the district court, dated January 7, 1997, that denied his
motion filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). That denial
is well supported by the November 12, 1996 Report and
Recommendation of the magistrate judge, which the district
court accepted and adopted. Upon our review of appellant's
brief and the record on appeal, we affirm that denial,
essentially for the reasons stated in the magistrate's report
and recommendation.
The January 7, 1997 district court order also recited
that "any pleadings, motions, complaints, or other documents
which the plaintiff hereafter files in this court will be
immediately dismissed or stricken from the record unless he
files an affidavit, under oath," that he has paid in full
"all outstanding sanctions imposed over the years in a number
of frivolous cases he has filed." (Emphasis in the
original). We construe this language as enjoining D'Amario
from filing any pleadings, motions, complaints, or other
documents that arise from and/or relate to his claim that he
has a right to photograph concerts at the Providence Civic
Center, including filings relating to satellite litigation
that D'Amario has repeatedly initiated since his original
complaint in 1983. So construed, we find no abuse of
discretion in the imposition of this injunction. See Cok v.
Family Court of Rhode Island, 985 F.2d 32, 34 (1st Cir. 1993)
-2-
(reciting that "[f]ederal courts plainly possess
discretionary powers to regulate the conduct of abusive
litigants). We add that we have previously affirmed the
dismissal of a prior lawsuit for failure to comply with past
orders directing D'Amario to pay attorney's fees and
sanctions in his related suits. See D'Amario v. Pine, No.
95-2131 (1st Cir. Feb. 1, 1996).
Affirmed.
-3-