USCA1 Opinion
March 27, 1996
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 95-2030
C. D. DI GIAMBATTISTA,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL J. DOHERTY, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. A. David Mazzone, U.S. District Judge] ___________________
[Hon. Reginald C. Lindsay, U.S. District Judge] ___________________
____________________
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________
Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges. ______________
____________________
C. D. Di Giambattista on brief pro se. _____________________
____________________
____________________
Per Curiam. The judgment is affirmed substantially for __________
the reasons enumerated by the district court in its pair of
decisions dated November 2, 1993 and September 1, 1995,
respectively. We add that plaintiff has proffered no grounds
for concluding that Judge Mazzone's refusal to recuse himself
from the case (prior to its reassignment for unrelated
reasons) constituted an abuse of discretion. See, e.g., Town ___ ____ ____
of Norfolk v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 968 F.2d __________ _____________________________________
1438, 1460 (1st Cir. 1992). Nor has he pointed to a genuine
issue of material fact that would preclude the award of
summary judgment in favor of defendants Henry and Doherty; as
Judge Lindsay explained, the evidence was undisputed that
plaintiff was arrested as a result of his abusive behavior.
Plaintiff's remaining contentions, to the extent they have
been advanced in something more than a "perfunctory manner,"
McIntosh v. Antonio, 71 F.3d 29, 38 (1st Cir. 1995) (quoting ________ _______
Ryan v. Royal Ins. Co. of America, 916 F.2d 731, 734 (1st ____ ___________________________
Cir. 1990)), prove equally unavailing.
Affirmed. See Loc. R. 27.1. ____________________________
-2-