Roberts v. Roberts ( 1999 )

USCA1 Opinion

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION--NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]

United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

                                 No. 98-1735



                         JANE B. ROBERTS,



                      Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                v.



                    KEVIN E. ROBERTS, ET AL.,



                      Defendants, Appellees.







           APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS



          [Hon. Richard G. Stearns, U.S. District Judge]







                              Before



 Stahl, Circuit Judge,

Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,

and Lynch, Circuit Judge.









     Elaine Whitfield Sharp, Daniel S. Sharp and Whitfield, Sharp & Sharp on brief for appellant.











February 9, 1999

















            Per Curiam.  Upon de novo review of the record, and

  consideration of appellant's brief, we conclude that the

  summary judgments for defendants Duffy, Gilleo, and Henderson

  should not be set aside.  We reach this conclusion essentially

  for the reasons given in the magistrate judge's Report and

  Recommendation dated February 27, 1998, and in the district

  court's Memorandum and Order dated May 12, 1998.  We add only

  one comment.

             Any procedural irregularity in entering judgment for

  defendant Gilleo was harmless, because, in connection with the

  Dorsey defendants' motion for summary judgment, appellant had

  ample opportunity and motivation to litigate the question of

  defendant Gilleo's role.  See Berkovitz v. Home Box Office,

  Inc., 89 F.3d 24, 29 (1st Cir. 1996); Jardines Bacata, Ltd. v.

  Diaz-Martinez, 878 F.2d 1555, 1561 (1st Cir. 1989).  The

  findings and conclusions on that subject in the magistrate

  judge's Report and Recommendation effectively disposed of the

  claims against defendant Gilleo.  Appellant failed to object to

  any aspect of that Report and Recommendation, and judgment was

  entered accordingly.  See United States v. Wihbey, 75 F.3d 761,

  766 n.1 (1st Cir. 1996).  Even were we inclined to consider

  appellant's belated and forfeited arguments now, in any event,

  those arguments do not persuade us that any viable claims

  remained.





                                -2-

             As appellant has appealed from the judgments for

  defendants Duffy, Gilleo, and Henderson only, the motion of the

  Dorsey defendants is denied as moot.

             Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.