Fornaro v. McManus ( 1998 )

USCA1 Opinion

        [NOT FOR PUBLICATION-NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]



                  United States Court of Appeals

                      For the First Circuit

                       ____________________



No. 98-1077



                           REX FORNARO,

                      Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                v.



                      JAMES MCMANUS, ET AL.,

                      Defendants, Appellees.



                       ____________________



           APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE



         [Hon. Shane Devine, Senior U.S. District Judge]

                       ____________________



                              Before



                     Torruella, Chief Judge,



                      Stahl, Circuit Judge,



and Rosenn, Senior Circuit Judge.

                      _____________________



     Robert E. Murphy, Jr., with whom Paul L. Apple and Wadleigh,

Starr, Peters, Dunn & Chiesa were on brief, for appellant.

     Peter Bennett, with whom Frederick B. Finberg and Bennett

Bennett and Troiano, P.A. were on brief, for appellees Pamela

Cantin and Gary E. Ellmer.

     Dorit S. Heimer, with whom Levett, Rockwood & Sanders was on

brief, for appellees George Lindemann, et al.





                       ____________________



                         July 10, 1998

                       ____________________

Per Curiam.  Appellant's motion to amend paragraph 10 of the

complaint is granted.

          Upon full review of the record in this case, we do not agree

with the district court's finding that it lacked personal

jurisdiction over four of the parties.  This conclusion, however,

does not alter the ultimate result of the case because we affirm

the district court's holding that the appellant failed to state a

legally cognizable claim and extend that holding to include those

four parties.  Lastly, we express no opinion as to the merits of

the district court's extension of the Burford abstention doctrine

to non-state administrative proceedings, as it is unnecessary to

support our decision.

          Appellees' Ellmer and Cantin motion for sanctions is grantedand is referred to the district court for a hearing and appropriate

action.

          Double costs are granted to appellees.