Davis v. Wonderland Greyhound

Opinion

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[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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-