USCA1 Opinion
October 2, 1995
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 95-1332
JOHN F. DESMOND,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF NAVY, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Mark L. Wolf, U.S. District Judge] ___________________
____________________
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________
Selya and Lynch, Circuit Judges. ______________
____________________
John F. Desmond on brief pro se. _______________
Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, and David S. Mackey, ________________ ________________
Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellees.
____________________
____________________
Per Curiam. Plaintiff filed pro se an eleven count __________ ___ __
amended complaint alleging a variety of common-law torts,
constitutional, and statutory claims against the United
States Department of the Navy, the Department of Veterans'
Affairs and unknown government agents. In a motion "to
dismiss or for summary judgment," defendants sought dismissal
of most of the counts on jurisdictional grounds, including
lack of statutory jurisdiction, sovereign immunity, failure
to timely file under the Federal Torts Claims Act and
mootness. Other counts were challenged for failure to state
a claim. Plaintiff offered voluminous exhibits, affidavits
and memoranda in support of his cause.
The magistrate's careful and thoughtful report
analyzed each of the claims, the relevant arguments and
evidence, and recommended dismissal of each count for
separately delineated jurisdictional and merit-based reasons.
Plaintiff's lengthy objections to the report were then
considered by the district judge, who adopted the
magistrate's recommendations in all respects.
Reviewing the dismissal de novo, we too agree with __ ____
the magistrate's detailed analysis and affirm the district
court judgment substantially for the reasons set forth in the
magistrate's report.
We have also explored the record with care in light
of a host of alleged procedural errors assigned by plaintiff.
Without attempting to characterize plaintiff's arguments
precisely, he challenges most of the court's interim rulings,
including an order extending the time for defendants to
answer the complaint, an order staying discovery pending
disposition of defendants' motion to dismiss, the procedure
used and evidence considered in resolving the motion to
dismiss, the rejection of his motion for the appointment of
counsel, and the rejection of his motions for recusal of the
district judge. In addition, plaintiff challenges the power
of the court to appoint a magistrate to consider the motion
to dismiss.
We find no abuse of discretion nor other
prejudicial error in the court's orders. There is also no
support in the record for plaintiff's wide-ranging
accusations of fraud, intimidation, and other wrongdoing
during the pendency of the case by defendants, the district
judge, the magistrates and the court clerk.
The judgment is affirmed. Plaintiff's motions "for ________
hearing on fraud upon the court," for "summary judgement . .
. because of appellee's fraud," and "to hold immediate
hearing on death threats," are denied. ______
-3-