Solomon v. Puritan Clothing, Inc.

First Circuit

Solomon v. Puritan Clothing, Inc.

106 F. App'x 81

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedAugust 13, 2004

Docket03-2649

StatusPublished

This text of 106 F. App'x 81 (Solomon v. Puritan Clothing, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Solomon v. Puritan Clothing, Inc., 106 F. App'x 81 (1st Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

After a thorough review of the record and of the parties’ submissions, we affirm, essentially for the reasons set out in the district court’s Memorandum and Order dated July 11, 2001, and its Order dated February 4, 2002. We add that it appears Solomon has forfeited his civil RICO and invasion of privacy claims by failing to provide any developed argument in support of those claims in his appellate brief. We find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s refusal to allow Solomon’s late-filed motion to amend, see Maine State Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council v. U.S. Dept. of Labor, 359 F.3d 14, 18 (1st Cir.2004); and we reject his suggestion that Judge O’Toole was required to recuse himself from this matter. See In re Boston’s Children First, 244 F.3d 164, 167 (1st Cir.2001) (recusal required only where facts exist which “an objective, knowledgeable member of the public would find to be a reasonable basis for doubting the judge’s impartiality.”).

Affirmed. See 1st Cir. R. 27(c).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

After a thorough review of the record and of the parties’ submissions, we affirm, essentially for the reasons set out in the district court’s Memorandum and Order dated July 11, 2001, and its Order dated February 4, 2002. We add that it appears Solomon has forfeited his civil RICO and invasion of privacy claims by failing to provide any developed argument in support of those claims in his appellate brief. We find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s refusal to allow Solomon’s late-filed motion to amend, see Maine State Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council v. U.S. Dept. of Labor, 359 F.3d 14, 18 (1st Cir.2004); and we reject his suggestion that Judge O’Toole was required to recuse himself from this matter. See In re Boston’s Children First, 244 F.3d 164, 167 (1st Cir.2001) (recusal required only where facts exist which “an objective, knowledgeable member of the public would find to be a reasonable basis for doubting the judge’s impartiality.”).

Affirmed. See 1st Cir. R. 27(c).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

106 F. App'x 81, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/solomon-v-puritan-clothing-inc-ca1-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack