Lewis v. Textron Automotive

Opinion

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

No. 97-1751

ALLAN LEWIS,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

TEXTRON AUTOMOTIVE INTERIORS AND JAMES D. HOUSTON,

Defendants, Appellees.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

[Hon. James R. Muirhead, U.S. District Judge]

Before

Lynch, Circuit Judge,

Aldrich and Campbell, Senior Circuit Judges.

Allan Lewis on brief pro se.

Don A. Banta, Ann L. Crane and Banta, Cox & Hennessy on brief for

appellees.

December 15, 1997

Per Curiam. We have carefully reviewed the briefs and

record on appeal and affirm the judgment below. The only

issue the appellant argues in his brief, thus the only matter

before us,1 is whether there was a genuine issue that a plant 1

closing caused layoffs triggering the Worker Adjustment and

Retraining Notification Act. 29 U.S.C. 2101-2109. When

the appellee presented evidence that a plant closing did not

cause the layoffs of which the appellant complained, it was

incumbent upon the appellant to adduce contrary evidence.

Celotex Corporation v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1989). He

did not do so.2 2

Affirmed. Loc. R. 27.1.

1 See United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1, 17 (1st Cir. 1 1990).

2 Accordingly, appellant's motions for attorney's fees and 2 pre-argument conference are also denied.

-2-