Mooney v. United States Dept.

USCA1 Opinion









May 25, 1993
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________


No. 92-2409

JAMES M. MOONEY,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, ETC.,

Defendant, Appellee.


____________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE


[Hon. Martin F. Loughlin, Senior U.S. District Judge]
__________________________

____________________

Before

Torruella, Cyr and Stahl,
Circuit Judges.
______________

____________________

James M. Mooney on brief pro se.
_______________
Peter E. Papps, Acting United States Attorney, and Gretchen Leah
______________ _____________
Witt, Assistant United States Attorney, on Motion for Summary
____
Disposition, for appellee.


____________________


____________________













Per Curiam. We have reviewed the record and the
___________

parties' submissions and are persuaded that the district court

properly dismissed the instant civil action for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction. Moreover, where appellant's complaint was not timely

filed, transfer to the Federal Circuit was not in the interests of

justice under 28 U.S.C. 1631. Accordingly, the judgment of the

district court is affirmed. Appellant's multiple objections to our
________

orders denying his motions for oral argument and appellant's motion

for authentication are denied.
______