You are on page 1of 11

USCA1 Opinion

May 21, 1996

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

____________________

No. 95-2134

A.G. EDWARDS, JR.,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

NEW ENGLAND TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY

AND NYNEX CORPORATION,

Defendants, Appellees.

____________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[Hon. Nancy J. Gertner, U.S. District Judge]


___________________

____________________

Before

Cyr, Circuit Judge,


_____________
Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
____________________
and Lynch, Circuit Judge.
_____________

____________________

A.G. Edwards, Jr. on brief pro se.


_________________
Julie J. Bernard on brief for appellees.

________________

____________________

____________________

Per Curiam.
__________

Plaintiff A.G.

Edwards, Jr.

appeals

from

of

the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor

defendants New

England Telephone

and Telegraph

Co. and

NYNEX Corp.

We affirm the judgment of the district court for

the reasons

stated in

the court's Memorandum

and Decision.

We add only the following comments:

1.

It is plain

that the district court liberally

construed plaintiff's pleadings as

Haines
______

required by cases such as

v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972).


______

Indeed, for purposes

of

its analysis on the merits, it gave plaintiff the benefit

of

the

doubt

defendants

nonetheless

and

owned

accepted

as

the telephones

determined

conjecture, plaintiff

that,

true

in

aside

his

assertion

question.

from

had provided no facts


_____

The

speculation

that

court

and

tending to show

that

the telephones

sounds

the

were defectively

telephones

emitted

Despite his pro se status,

designed or

caused

his

503,

506

(1st

hearing

1994) ("[t]he

to

See Eagle Eye


___ _________

United States Dep't of Commerce, 20


_________________________________

Cir.

loss.

plaintiff still was obligated

comply with what the substantive law required.

Fishing Corp. v.
_____________

that the

Constitution

does

F.3d

not

require judges . . . to take up the slack when a party elects

to represent himself").

2.

district court

summary

We also see nothing amiss with the process the

employed in deciding

judgment.

defendants' motion

for

While the record must be construed in the

-2-

non-movant's

facts
_____

favor,

sufficient to

Smith,
_____

904 F.2d

that party

show a

112, 115

still must

submit specific
________

dispute.

Griggs-Ryan v.
___________

real

(1st Cir.

responses unsupported by evidence

defeat a

properly focused

omitted)

(non-movant may

Rule 56

not

1990).

"[C]onclusory

. . . will [not]

motion."

simply rest

serve to

Id. (citation
___

upon his

or her

pleadings).

As

the

district court

found, plaintiff

offered his conclusions without specifying

facts.

Based on

mandated.

Cf.
___

F.2d 399,

400-01

this state of

any corroborative

affairs, a

Posadas de Puerto Rico, Inc.


_____________________________

(1st

Cir.

undisputed, a hearing is not

1988)

(where

necessary).

only

hearing was not

v. Radin,
_____

the

facts

856

are

As for plaintiff's

request for more time to substantiate his claims, he does not

indicate

exactly

reveal.

Thus,

what

the

facts

additional

district

court

did

discovery

not

discretion when it implicitly denied this entreaty.

One Texas, N.A.


_______________

(1st Cir.

despite an

abuse

would

its

See Bank
___ ____

v. A. J. Warehouse, Inc., 968 F.2d 94,


______________________

100

1992) (a district court may grant summary judgment

opposing party's

assertion that discovery

would

lead

to more facts where the opposing party does not specify

the facts that discovery would reveal).

3.

judgment

for

The district court refused to

against defendants or

summary judgment

enter a default

summarily deny

for failing

to confer

their motion

with plaintiff

prior to filing their motion for summary judgment.

-3-

See L.R.,
___

D.Mass. 7.1(A)(2).

The parties had attended a non-productive

settlement conference about a year and a half after plaintiff

began

the

summary

action.

judgment

conference.

The

just

the abortive

abuse its

filing

651

weeks

(D. Mass.

filed the

after

was not

conference, the

motion

the

change a

six-week period

district court

not imposing such

for

settlement

likely to

for over a year in the

discretion in

against defendants.

646,

six

Because plaintiff

position he had held

after

defendants

did not

severe sanctions

See Gerakaris v. Champagne, 913 F. Supp.


___ _________
_________

1996)

(neglecting to

confer

prior to

a motion to dismiss, which was certain to be opposed,

does not warrant the summary denial of the motion).

Affirmed.
________

-4-