Smith v. Sheehan

Opinion

USCA1 Opinion

        December 28, 1995       [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT


____________________


No. 95-1683


TIMOTHY SCOTT BAILEY SMITH, ET AL.,



                               Plaintiffs, Appellants,



                                          v.



                                JANE SHEEHAN, ET AL.,



                                Defendants, Appellees.



                                 ____________________



                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE



                       [Hon. Gene Carter, U.S. District Judge]
                                          ___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Selya, Stahl and Lynch,

                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________



                                 ____________________



            Timothy Scott Bailey Smith on brief pro se.
            __________________________

            Andrew  Ketterer, Attorney  General, and Leanne  Robbin, Assistant
            ________________                         ______________

        Attorney General, on brief for appellees.


____________________


____________________



Per Curiam.  On cross-motions for summary judgment,
                      __________



            the district  court granted defendants' motion  on the merits



            and dismissed the case.   Plaintiffs main challenge on appeal



            is to the timing,  and manner of service, of  the defendants'



            motion.   We have carefully  reviewed the record  and briefs,



            and see no abuse of discretion in the magistrate's refusal to



            compel defendants first to file an answer.  See Fed. R.  Civ.
                                                        ___



            P.  56(b).  There was also no  prejudice to the plaintiffs in



            the  few days' delay caused by the defendants' mailing of the



            motion to the wrong address. 



                      Plaintiffs'  constitutional  challenges  to  events



            that  occurred in  the state  proceedings after  the district



            court  entered its judgment in  this case are  not properly a



            subject  of this appeal.   This court does  not have original



            jurisdiction  to  entertain  such  complaints.     Seeing  no



            exceptional   reason   to   consider  plaintiffs'   remaining



            arguments  (one made for the first time on appeal, the others



            without  developed  argumentation),  the  judgment  below  is



            affirmed.
            ________


-2-