The US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Neil Johnson's complaint. The appeals court found no abuse of discretion in the dismissal due to Johnson's persistent refusal to comply with court rulings, which prevented orderly proceedings. The appeals court affirmed the dismissal for the reasons provided in the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation and the district court's order.
The US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Neil Johnson's complaint. The appeals court found no abuse of discretion in the dismissal due to Johnson's persistent refusal to comply with court rulings, which prevented orderly proceedings. The appeals court affirmed the dismissal for the reasons provided in the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation and the district court's order.
The US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Neil Johnson's complaint. The appeals court found no abuse of discretion in the dismissal due to Johnson's persistent refusal to comply with court rulings, which prevented orderly proceedings. The appeals court affirmed the dismissal for the reasons provided in the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation and the district court's order.
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION--NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit
No. 97-2201
NEIL JOHNSON,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
CORNELL CORRECTION, INC., ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
[Hon. Mary M. Lisi, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge,
Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge and Stahl, Circuit Judge.
Neil Johnson on brief pro se.
Thomas D. Gidley, Dennis T. Grieco II, and Gidley, Sarli & Marusak on brief for appellees.
September 8, 1998
Per Curiam. the record on appeal.
There was no abuse of discretion in the
We have
dismissal of appellant's complaint.
See Marx v. Kelly, Hart &
Hallman, P.C., 929 F.2d 8, 10 (1st Cir. 1991) (reciting that a
Rule 37 dismissal is reviewed for abuse of discretion). Indeed, whatever merit might have attended appellant's original position, his persistent refusal to recognize clear and repeated rulings of the court effectively aborted the possibility of orderly proceedings.
We therefore affirm,
essentially for the reasons stated in the Magistrate Judge's
Report and Recommendation, dated July 10, 1997, and the district court's order, dated September 18, 1997. Affirmed.
Stanley v. Tucker v. William R. Moller, Edmund T. Curran, Regnier, Moller & Taylor, A Partnership, John Does, A, B, C, and D, 445 F.2d 1400, 2d Cir. (1971)