Atkins v. Raytheon

Opinion

USCA1 Opinion

March 29, 1996        [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT


____________________


No. 95-1993



                                   JOHN M. ATKINS,



                                Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                          v.



                                   RAYTHEON CORP.,



                                 Defendant, Appellee.


____________________



                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS



                   [Hon. Douglas P. Woodlock, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Torruella, Chief Judge
                                           ___________

                          Stahl and Boudin, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________



                                 ____________________



               John M. Atkins on brief pro se.
               ______________

               David C. Casey, Elena E. Salzman and Peckham,  Lobel, Casey,
               ______________  ________________     _______________________

          Prince & Tye on brief for appellee.
          ____________


____________________


____________________



Per  Curiam.   On  appeal from  an adverse  summary
                      ___________



            judgment, appellant assigns a single error: that the district



            court  abused  its  discretion  in  denying  his  motion  for



            discovery  under  Fed. R.  Civ. P.  56(f).   After  a careful



            review  of the  record,  we  see  no  abuse  of  the  court's



            considerable discretion to manage  pretrial proceedings.  See
                                                                      ___



            Carreiro v. Rhodes Gill & Co., Ltd., 68 F.3d 1443, 1446  (1st
            ________    _______________________



            Cir. 1995).    Appellant offered  no  basis to  believe  that



            further discovery  would raise a  trialworthy issue.   Id. at
                                                                   ___



            1449.  



                       Affirmed.
                       ________


-2-