[NOT FOR PUBLICATION–NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 00-1209
MICHAEL S. EMANUEL,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
QUALITY DISCOUNT MARKET, CORP.,
Plaintiff,
v.
SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant, Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
[Hon. Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr., U.S. District Judge]
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge,
Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
and Lipez, Circuit Judge.
Michael S. Emanuel on brief pro se.
Nancy Ankers White, Special Assistant Attorney General, and
Wendy C. Weber, Counsel, Department of Correction, on brief for
appellee.
April 9, 2001
Per Curiam. After carefully considering the briefs
and record on appeal, we affirm substantially for the
reasons developed in the district court. We add only the
following.
Mr. Emanuel argues on appeal that the district
court improperly dismissed Quality’s claim for breach of a
duty to foreclose in a commercially reasonable manner.
Although we express no opinion about the existence of such
a cause of action, since we have already dismissed the
corporation’s appeal, the claim is not before us.
The appellant also argues that the court erred in
refusing to allow him to represent Quality, and may intend
to suggest that the court erred in dismissing a claim he
held as guarantor. Below, Appellant raised the issues
belatedly and the court finally dismissed the action for
failure to prosecute without considering them. The court
found that, despite numerous extensions and warnings, the
appellant repeatedly failed to meet deadlines. The case was
nearly three years old, but presented no discernable claim.
Under the circumstances, the court did not abuse its
considerable discretion in dismissing, nor does the
appellant present any argument that it did. John’s
Insulation, Inc. v. L. Addison and Associates, Inc., 156
F.3d 101 (1st Cir. 1998).
Appellant raises no other issue on appeal that was
properly presented below. Hernandez-Hernandez v. United
States, 904 F.2d 758, 763 (1st Cir. 1990)(arguments may not
be presented for the first time on appeal).
Affirmed. Loc. R. 27(c).
-3-