Toegemann v. City of Cranston ( 1995 )

USCA1 Opinion

        September 14, 1995      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT







                                 ____________________





        No. 94-1856



                                 ARTHUR J. TOEGEMANN,



                                Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                          v.



                              CITY OF CRANSTON, ET AL.,



                                Defendants, Appellees.





                                 ____________________



                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND





                 [Hon. Francis J. Boyle, Senior U.S. District Judge]
__________________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Torruella, Chief Judge
___________

                           Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
______________



                                 ____________________



            Arthur J. Toegemann on brief pro se.
___________________

            William  F. Holt, Assistant City Solicitor, on  brief for appellee
________________

        City of Cranston.

            Seth E. Bowerman and Hanson, Curran, Parks  & Whitman on brief for
________________     ________________________________

        appellees Saratoga Hospital and Butler Hospital.

            Joseph A.  Keough, Jr.,  Francis X. Flaherty  and Wynn  & Wynn  on
______________________   ___________________      ____________

        brief for appellee Peter Palombo, Jr.





                                 ____________________





                                 ____________________





































                 Per  Curiam.  Upon review of the record and the parties'
___________



            briefs  on appeal, we are persuaded that the district court's



            order  was  fully justified  by  the  plaintiff's history  of



            filing  meritless   actions  against   many   of  the   named



            defendants.  Accordingly, the  judgment of the district court



            is affirmed.  See Local Rule 27.1.  Costs to appellees.
________   ___



















































































                                         -2-