Dowd v. Gunning

Opinion

USCA1 Opinion

January 20, 1995
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

No. 94-1101 

                                   THOMAS F. DOWD,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                       GUNNING, LAFAZIA AND GNYS, INC., ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

[Hon. Francis J. Boyle, Senior U.S. District Judge]
                                         __________________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                           Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                     ____________________
                              and Boudin, Circuit Judge.
                                          _____________

                                 ____________________

            Thomas F. Dowd on brief pro se.
            ______________
            Kevin S. Cotter on brief for appellees.
            _______________

____________________

____________________



Per  Curiam.   The  judgment of  dismissal is  affirmed.
                 ___________

            Contrary to  plaintiff's  suggestion, his  complaint was  not

            "lodged" with the Clerk  and thereafter rejected for "filing"

            upon denial of his application to proceed in forma  pauperis;
                                                      __________________

            rather,  the docket sheet reveals that it was filed on August

            27, 1993.  Contrary  to his further suggestion, the  order of

            dismissal  here was  not  prompted by  defendants' motion  to

            dismiss; rather, it  was entered,  after appropriate  notice,

            for failure to prosecute.  And his argument that the district

            court  was without power to enter an order of dismissal under

            these circumstances is frivolous.  See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P.
                                               ___  ____

            41(b); 28 U.S.C.   1915(d). 

                 Affirmed.
                 _________