Ferguson v. UA Local 4

Opinion

USCA1 Opinion

March 31, 1994        [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ___________________

Nos. 93-1412
               93-1580

WILLIAM FERGUSON,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                    PLUMBERS & PIPEFITTERS LOCAL UNION #4, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

__________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                     [Hon. Robert E. Keeton, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ___________________

                                        Before

                                 Breyer, Chief Judge,
                                         ___________
                         Torruella and Selya, Circuit Judges.
                                              ______________

                                 ___________________

               William V. Ferguson Jr. on brief pro se.
               ______________________
               Robert M. Cheverie on Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion
               __________________
          for Summary Disposition for appellee.

__________________

                                  __________________

Per Curiam.    Plaintiff William Ferguson appeals a
                      __________

            district court judgment which  dismissed his pro se complaint
                                                         ___ __

            for  failure  to  state a  claim  upon  which  relief can  be

            granted.    Having thoroughly  reviewed  the  record and  the

            plaintiff's briefs  and reply  briefs, we are  persuaded that

            the  district  court  judgment  is correct.    Moreover,  the

            plaintiff's multiple  filings demonstrate  that this  suit is

            patently frivolous  and thus also subject  to dismissal under

            28 U.S.C.  1915(d).   See Neitzke v. Williams, 490  U.S. 319,
                                  ___ _______    ________

            327-28  (1990).1   Accordingly,  the defendants'  motion  for

            summary  affirmance  is  allowed  and  the  judgment  of  the
                                     _______

            district court is affirmed.2       
                              ________

____________________

            1.  Thus, there  also was  no error  in the  district court's
            denial of Ferguson's motion for a preliminary injunction.

            2.  Ferguson's  motion  to  adduce  additional   evidence  is
            denied.

                                         -2-