Miller v. Maine Public Safety

Opinion

USCA1 Opinion

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________


No. 96-1647



                                   AARON J. MILLER,



                                Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                          v.



                           MAINE PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT,

                          A/K/A MAINE STATE POLICE, ET AL.,



                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________


APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE



                   [Hon. Eugene W. Beaulieu, U.S. Magistrate Judge]
                                             _____________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________

                          Boudin and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________

                                 ____________________



            Aaron J. Miller on brief pro se.
            _______________

            Andrew Ketterer, Attorney  General, Paul Stern and Peter J. Brann,
            _______________                     __________     ______________

        Assistant  Attorneys  General, on  brief  for  appellees Maine  Public

        Safety Department, a/k/a  Maine State Police, Dale York, Robert James,

        Robert Ervin,  Walter Chapin, Stanley Cunningham,  Laurie Rackliff and

        John Blagdon.

            Philip M.  Coffin, III,  Thomas  V. Laprade  and Lambert,  Coffin,
            ______________________   __________________      _________________

        Rudman  &  Hochman  on brief  for  appellees  City  of Augusta,  Wayne
        __________________

        McCamish and William Hayward.



                                 ____________________



                                   November 7, 1996

                                 ____________________



Per Curiam.  The  judgment is affirmed substantially for
                 __________



            the reasons  recited by  the magistrate-judge in  his May  7,



            1996 memorandum of decision.   Plaintiff's complaint that the



            magistrate-judge  overlooked his  affidavit and  statement of



            disputed facts  is misplaced; those documents were submitted,



            in untimely fashion, only after judgment had issued.  We note



            that plaintiff's  submissions would not call  the magistrate-



            judge's  reasoning  into  question  in any  event.    We have



            considered  the remaining arguments  advanced by plaintiff on



            appeal and find them unavailing. 



                 Affirmed.
                 _________


-2-