Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 07-1936
ANTHONY GULLA,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
KATHLEEN DENNEHY, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Richard G. Stearns, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Torruella, Circuit Judge,
Selya, Senior Circuit Judge,
and Lipez, Circuit Judge.
Anthony Gulla on brief pro se.
Daryl F. Glazer, Department of Correction, Legal Division, and
Nancy Ankers White, Special Assistant Attorney General, on brief
for appellees, Kathleen Dennehy, Susan Martin, Luis Spencer and
Christopher Mitchell.
Alexandra M. Jojin, James A. Bello and Morrison Mahoney LLP,
on brief for appellee, Denise Thomas.
March 14, 2008
Per Curiam. Pro se appellant Anthony Gulla appeals from
orders dismissing his civil action for want of prosecution and
declining to grant his motion to vacate the dismissal order. After
careful review of the record and appellate briefs, we affirm.
We conclude that the district court did not abuse
its discretion in dismissing the case. Gulla had been given a
generous extension of time to prepare his amended complaint, but he
failed to timely file it. Instead, he filed a late request for
another extension, insisting that it was timely. But the district
court had previously stated that "no further extensions" would be
granted, and the belated request for additional time was
substantively and formally defective. It did not show that an
extension of time was justified, and it did not comply with formal
prerequisites for motions that had been specified and emphasized in
prior court orders. Before dismissing the suit, the court had
warned Gulla that his suit would be dismissed if he did not timely
file his amended complaint. Under these circumstances, there was
no abuse of discretion. See Figueroa Ruiz v. Alegria, 896 F.2d
645, 647 (1st Cir. 1990) (indicating that an action may be
dismissed with prejudice for lack of prosecution where a plaintiff
has disobeyed the court's orders and ignored its warnings).
We find Gulla's appellate arguments to be unpersuasive.
The documents he provides on appeal do not establish that his case
-2-
was meritorious and that he was incapacitated during the critical
time period.
Affirmed.
-3-