USCA1 Opinion
March 31, 1994 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
___________________
Nos. 93-1412
93-1580
WILLIAM FERGUSON,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
PLUMBERS & PIPEFITTERS LOCAL UNION #4, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
__________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Robert E. Keeton, U.S. District Judge]
___________________
___________________
Before
Breyer, Chief Judge,
___________
Torruella and Selya, Circuit Judges.
______________
___________________
William V. Ferguson Jr. on brief pro se.
______________________
Robert M. Cheverie on Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion
__________________
for Summary Disposition for appellee.
__________________
__________________
Per Curiam. Plaintiff William Ferguson appeals a
__________
district court judgment which dismissed his pro se complaint
___ __
for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. Having thoroughly reviewed the record and the
plaintiff's briefs and reply briefs, we are persuaded that
the district court judgment is correct. Moreover, the
plaintiff's multiple filings demonstrate that this suit is
patently frivolous and thus also subject to dismissal under
28 U.S.C. 1915(d). See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,
___ _______ ________
327-28 (1990).1 Accordingly, the defendants' motion for
summary affirmance is allowed and the judgment of the
_______
district court is affirmed.2
________
____________________
1. Thus, there also was no error in the district court's
denial of Ferguson's motion for a preliminary injunction.
2. Ferguson's motion to adduce additional evidence is
denied.
-2-