Cataldo v. CNA Insurance Co.

• Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
• Decided: June 2, 1995
• Docket: 95-1124
• Status: Published

Opinion

USCA1 Opinion

June 2, 1995

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCIUT



                                 ____________________


No. 95-1124



                                  RALPH J. CATALDO,



                                Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                          v.



                                  CNA INSURANCE CO.,



                                 Defendant, Appellee.


____________________



                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE



                     [Hon. Morton A. Brody, U.S. District Judge]
                                            ___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                               Torruella, Chief Judge.
                                          ___________

                           Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________



                                 ____________________



            Ralph J. Cataldo on brief pro se.
            ________________

            Glenn H. Robinson, Thompson & Bowie on brief for appellee.
            _________________  ________________


____________________



                                 ____________________



Per Curiam.  We  have read carefully the record  in this
                 __________



            case and the briefs of  the parties.  We have  considered the



            various claims raised  by appellant and find  none to possess



            merit.   We affirm the grant of summary judgment to appellee,



            essentially for  the reasons given  by the district  court in



            its memorandum and order, dated January 9, 1995.  



                 Appellant's motion  to "strike or vacate  court order of



            April 18,  1995," is  denied as  moot.   While we agree  with
                                  ______



            appellee  that   the  statements  contained   in  appellant's



            "notification  of  the  creation  of  false  and   fictitious



            evidence" were  completely without  foundation  and were  not



            properly presented to this court, we do not deem it necessary



            to grant  appellee's motion  to strike the  "notification" as



            the court  has disregarded  it in  the consideration  of this



            case.   See Fine v.  Paramount Pictures, Inc.,  171 F.2d 571,
                    ___ ____     _______________________



            575 (7th Cir. 1948).



                 Affirmed. 
                 ________