USCA1 Opinion
September 12, 1996 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 96-1583
RICHARD A. COLE, M.D.,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
THOMAS WITTMAN, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge] ___________________
____________________
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________
Cyr and Stahl, Circuit Judges. ______________
____________________
Richard A. Cole, M.D. F.A.C.P. on brief pro se. ______________________________
Jennifer L. Johnston and Quinn, Buseck, Leemhuis, Toohey & Kroto, ____________________ ________________________________________
Inc. on brief for appellees Thomas Wittmann, M.D., Vinod Patel, M.D., ____
Edward Overfield, M.D., Chest Diseases of Northwestern Pennsylvania,
Saint Vincent Health Center and Saint Vincent Foundation for Health
and Human Services.
Daniel J. Pastore and The McDonald Group, L.L.P. on brief for __________________ ___________________________
appellees John T. Schaaf, M.D., Hamot Medical Center and Hamot
Healthcare Corp.
Jeffrey R. Cohen, Wayne, Lazares & Chappell, W. Patrick Delaney, _________________ __________________________ __________________
Dale Huntley and MacDonald, Illig, Jones & Britton LLP on brief for ____________ ______________________________________
appellees MacDonald, Illig, Jones & Britton LLP.
Jeffrey R. Cohen and Wayne, Lazares & Chappell on brief for _________________ ____________________________
appellee Millcreek Community Hospital.
____________________
____________________
Per Curiam. For the purposes of this appeal, we assume, __________
without deciding, that we have jurisdiction to consider the
merits of the order dismissing appellant's complaint. In any
case, upon careful review of the record and appellate briefs,
it clearly appears that no substantial question is presented
here and that no reversal is warranted.
Because appellant made no showing that a transfer would
be in the interest of justice, we conclude that the district
court did not abuse its discretion in failing to order one.
See Cote v. Wadel, 796 F.2d 981, 984 (7th Cir. 1986); Dubin ___ ____ _____ _____
v. United States, 380 F.2d 813, 816 (5th Cir. 1967) (it is ______________
not in the interest of justice to use 28 U.S.C. 1406(a) to
"aid a non-diligent plaintiff who knowingly files a case in
the wrong district"); see also Mulcahy v. Guertler, 416 _________ _______ ________
F.Supp. 1083, 1086 (D. Mass. 1976).
Appellant's remaining arguments also are without merit.
He never sought leave to amend his complaint, and amendment
would not cure the defects which supported the dismissal.
Further, there is no legal or factual support for his
assertion of judicial bias.
Affirmed. See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1. ________ ___
-2-