Hathaway v. City of Claremont ( 1997 )

USCA1 Opinion

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT



                                 ____________________





        No. 96-2193



                                   SHAUN HATHAWAY,



                                Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                          v.



                                  CITY OF CLAREMONT,



                                 Defendant, Appellee.



                                 ____________________





                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE



                   [Hon. Joseph A. DiClerico, U.S. District Judge]
___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
___________

                           Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
____________________

                              and Boudin, Circuit Judge.
_____________



                                 ____________________



            Donald L. Lader, Jr. and Law Offices of Michael C. Shklar on
____________________     ________________________________

        brief for appellant.

            Edward B. Mulligan, IV and Gallagher, Callahan & Gartrell, P.A.
______________________     ____________________________________

        on brief for appellee.





                                 ____________________



                                    MARCH 27, 1997

                                 ____________________





































                 Per Curiam.  The  judgment is affirmed substantially for
__________



            the  reasons enumerated by Chief Judge DiClerico in his order



            dated September 16,  1996.  Appellant has  advanced no reason



            to   question  the   careful  analysis   of  claim-preclusion



            principles  there set  forth.   The contention  that appellee



            waived or forfeited such  defense by failing to assert  it in



            timely fashion,  see, e.g., Calderon Rosado  v. General Elec.
___  ____  _______________     _____________



            Circuit Breakers, Inc., 805 F.2d  1085, 1087 (1st Cir.  1986)
______________________



            (citing Restatement  (Second)  of Judgments    26(1)(a)),  is



            raised for  the first time  on appeal.   We thus review  that



            claim for "plain error" indicative of a "clear miscarriage of



            justice."  Playboy Enterprises,  Inc. v. Public Serv. Comm'n,
__________________________    ___________________



            906 F.2d 25, 40 (1st Cir. 1990) (internal quotation omitted).



            We see neither plain error nor a miscarriage of justice.



                 Affirmed.  See Loc. R. 27.1.
____________________________















































                                         -2-