Cole v. Wittman ( 1996 )

USCA1 Opinion

        September 12, 1996      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________





        No. 96-1583



                                RICHARD A. COLE, M.D.,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                          v.



                               THOMAS WITTMAN, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________



                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS



                     [Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge]
___________________

                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
___________

                            Cyr and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
______________

                                 ____________________





            Richard A. Cole, M.D. F.A.C.P. on brief pro se.
______________________________

            Jennifer L. Johnston and  Quinn, Buseck, Leemhuis, Toohey & Kroto,
____________________      ________________________________________

        Inc.  on brief for appellees Thomas Wittmann, M.D., Vinod Patel, M.D.,
____

        Edward Overfield, M.D.,  Chest Diseases of  Northwestern Pennsylvania,

        Saint Vincent Health  Center and Saint  Vincent Foundation for  Health

        and Human Services.

            Daniel J.  Pastore and  The McDonald  Group, L.L.P.  on brief  for
__________________      ___________________________

        appellees  John  T. Schaaf,  M.D.,  Hamot  Medical  Center  and  Hamot

        Healthcare Corp.

            Jeffrey R.  Cohen, Wayne, Lazares  & Chappell, W. Patrick Delaney,
_________________  __________________________  __________________

        Dale Huntley  and MacDonald, Illig, Jones  & Britton LLP  on brief for
____________      ______________________________________

        appellees MacDonald, Illig, Jones & Britton LLP.

            Jeffrey R.  Cohen  and Wayne,  Lazares  &  Chappell on  brief  for
_________________      ____________________________

        appellee Millcreek Community Hospital.



                                 ____________________





                                 ____________________



























                 Per Curiam.  For the purposes of this appeal, we assume,
__________



            without deciding,  that we have jurisdiction  to consider the



            merits of the order dismissing appellant's complaint.  In any



            case, upon careful review of the record and appellate briefs,



            it clearly appears that  no substantial question is presented



            here and that no reversal is warranted.



                 Because appellant made no  showing that a transfer would



            be  in the interest of justice, we conclude that the district



            court did not abuse  its discretion in failing to  order one.



            See Cote v. Wadel,  796 F.2d 981, 984 (7th  Cir. 1986); Dubin
___ ____    _____                                       _____



            v. United  States, 380 F.2d 813,  816 (5th Cir. 1967)  (it is
______________



            not in the interest of justice  to use 28 U.S.C.   1406(a) to



            "aid a  non-diligent plaintiff who knowingly files  a case in



            the  wrong  district"); see  also  Mulcahy  v. Guertler,  416
_________  _______     ________



            F.Supp. 1083, 1086 (D. Mass. 1976).



                 Appellant's  remaining arguments also are without merit.



            He never sought leave to  amend his complaint, and  amendment



            would  not cure  the defects  which supported  the dismissal.



            Further,  there  is  no  legal  or factual  support  for  his



            assertion of judicial bias.



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























                                         -2-