[NOT FOR PUBLICATION–NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 00-2477
DAVID MICHAUD,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL MCQUADE, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
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,
Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge,
and Lipez, Circuit Judge.
David Michaud on brief pro se.
Sean M. Perrin and Devine, Millimet & Branch on brief for
appellees.
June 14, 2001
Per Curiam. Pro se appellant, David Michaud,
objects to the district court's grant of summary judgment
against him in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against two
police officers and their municipal employer. After careful
review of the record, in particular the parties' summary
judgment submissions, we conclude that his claims of error
lack merit. We affirm, essentially for the reasons given by
the district court in its Order dated October 31, 2000. We
make only the following additional comment.
We see no need to determine whether the district
court erroneously declined to consider certain claims on the
ground that they had been dismissed pursuant to a prior
order by a magistrate judge. As the record establishes,
summary judgment on these claims in favor of defendants
would have been warranted, in any event. There was no
factual basis for the claim that defendants had violated
Michaud's First Amendment rights when his then estranged
wife, Linda Michaud, who was the custodial parent, sent him
away from her father's residence without letting him visit
his children on June 13, 1996. In an affidavit, Michaud
informed the district court that his visitation hours on the
day in question concluded at 5 p.m., and defendants'
-2-
affidavits establish that he arrived at his father-in-law's
house at approximately 5:20 p.m. That is, the undisputed
facts establish that Michaud had no right to visit with his
children at the time in question.
In addition, there was no factual basis for the
claim that defendants made false reports to an assistant
state attorney general, thereby obtaining, without probable
cause, his authorization to wiretap Michaud's telephone
conversation with his wife on June 13, 1996. During
discovery, defendants gave sworn responses to Michaud's
interrogatories, stating unequivocally that they had never
knowingly made false reports to the attorney general's
office. In responding to defendants' interrogatories,
Michaud declined to even identify the defendants' alleged
falsehoods. Accordingly, summary judgment in defendants'
favor was warranted.
Affirmed.
-3-