Dickinson v. Ridlon

Opinion

USCA1 Opinion

October 10, 1996      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT



                                 ____________________


No. 96-1693



                                 NORMAN E. DICKINSON,



                                Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                          v.



                                WESLEY RIDLON, ET AL.,



                                Defendants, Appellees.


____________________



                     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.
                                            ______________



                                 ____________________



            Norman E. Dickinson on brief pro se.
            ___________________

            Monaghan, Leahy, Hochadel, & Libby, William  R. Fisher, and Ivy L.
            __________________________________  __________________      ______

        Frignoca on brief for appellees.
        ________


____________________


____________________



Per  Curiam.    The  magistrate-judge's  denial  of
                      ___________



            appellant's motion to postpone the final  pretrial conference



            was  tantamount to  an order  to appear  at that  conference.



            Appellant thereafter  was not justified in  failing to appear



            regardless  whether appellant subjectively  felt prepared for



            the  conference or not.    In these  circumstances, the court



            did not abuse  its discretion when appellant failed to attend



            the  April  8,  1996  conference.    That appellant  was  not



            expressly  advised that  failure  to appear  could result  in



            dismissal does not require a different result.  Any belief on



            appellant's  part that he could flout the scheduling order in



            the manner he did was completely unjustified.



                      Affirmed.  Loc. R. 27.1.
                      ________


-2-