Stanton v. Cumberland ( 2000 )

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION–NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 99-1243
DANIEL R. STANTON,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND DURPHY, CUMBERLAND COUNTY
JAIL PROPERTY CORPORAL,
Defendants, Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE
[Hon. Gene Carter, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge,
Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
Daniel R. Stanton on brief pro se.
May 9, 2000
Per Curiam. After a thorough review of the record
and of the appellant’s submissions, we affirm. Contrary to
appellant Daniel R. Stanton’s (“Stanton’s”) contention, the
record clearly shows that the district court did dispose of
his motions for judgment (docket nos. 55 & 57) by striking
them for non-compliance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 5. Stanton has
made no showing that the court’s decision to award relief
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) prejudiced him or that the
delay adversely affected the proceedings, see Pioneer Inv.
Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. Partnership, 507 U.S.
380, 395 (1993), so we find no abuse of discretion. See
Sea-Land Serv., Inc. v. Ceramica Europa II, Inc., 160 F.3d
849, 852 (1st Cir. 1998) (order of relief under Rule 60(b)
reviewed for abuse of discretion). Stanton’s claim that
defendants/appellees failed to comply with a discovery order
is unsupported by any explanation as to why the materials in
question were important to his case or in what way they
could have changed the outcome of the litigation, so the
argument is forfeited. See Martinez v. Colon, 54 F.3d 980,
990 (1st Cir. 1995).
Affirmed. 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27(c).