USCA1 Opinion
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 96-1604
FRED DAVIS,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
WONDERLAND GREYHOUND PARK, INC., ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Douglas P. Woodlock, U.S. District Judge] ___________________
____________________
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________
Cyr and Stahl, Circuit Judges. ______________
____________________
Fred Davis on brief pro se. __________
Stephen B. Reed and Kearns & Rubin, P.C. on brief for appellees. _______________ ____________________
____________________
August 27, 1996
____________________
Per Curiam. Having reviewed the entire record, ___________
including the transcript of the June 30, 1995 truncated
deposition at which plaintiff claims he was harassed, we
summarily affirm the dismissal of plaintiff's action for the
reasons stated in the district court's April 11, 1996
memorandum and order. Plaintiff was not unfairly treated at
the deposition and plaintiff was afforded multiple
opportunities to complete the deposition. When plaintiff
failed without any adequately documented justification to
appear for the rescheduled deposition, the court did not
abuse its discretion in dismissing plaintiff's action.
Affirmed. Loc. R. 27.1. ________
-2-