Solimine v. Ortho McNeil ( 1995 )


Menu:
  • USCA1 Opinion








    May 30, 1995
    [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT


    ____________________

    No. 94-1944


    ANTHONY SOLIMINE,

    Plaintiff, Appellant,

    v.

    ORTHO MCNEIL, ET AL.,

    Defendants, Appellees.



    ____________________

    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

    FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

    [Hon. Rya W. Zobel, U.S. District Judge] ___________________

    ____________________

    Before

    Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________
    Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges. ______________

    ____________________

    Anthony Solimine on brief pro se. ________________


    ____________________


    ____________________




















    Per Curiam. We have reviewed appellant's brief and the __________

    record on appeal. We affirm essentially for the reasons

    stated in the district court's memorandum, dated April 26,

    1994.

    Appellant's "motion for leave to file up to ten (10)

    page memorandum on supplemental authorities and an appendix"

    and "motion for leave to file brief memorandum of

    supplemental authorities" are denied. They are extremely _______

    tardy and, in any event, present nothing of merit.

    Appellant's motion for oral argument is denied. _______

    The district court's order of dismissal is affirmed. _________































    -2-






Document Info

Docket Number: 94-1944

Filed Date: 5/30/1995

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/21/2015