Cataldo v. Roberts ( 1997 )

USCA1 Opinion

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________





        No. 97-1469



                                  RALPH J. CATALDO,



                                Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                          v.



                               MICHAEL ROBERTS, ET AL.,



                                Defendants, Appellees.



                                 ____________________





                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE



                       [Hon. Gene Carter, U.S. District Judge]
___________________

                     [Hon. David M. Cohen, U.S. Magistrate Judge]
_____________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                               Selya, Boudin and Lynch,

                                   Circuit Judges.
______________



                                 ____________________



            Ralph J. Cataldo on brief pro se.
________________

            Andrew Ketterer, Attorney General, and  Peter J. Brann,  Assistant
_______________                         ______________

        Attorney General,  on brief for appellees Michael  Roberts and Michael

        Morrison.

            William R. Fisher,  Ivy L. Frignoca and Monaghan, Leahy,  Hochadel
_________________   _______________     __________________________

        & Libby  on brief for  appellees Edward Reynolds and  Penobscot County
_______

        Sheriff's Department.

            Harold  C.  Hamilton and  Logan,  Kurr  & Hamilton  on  brief  for
____________________      ________________________

        appellee BettyLynn Trusz.



                                 ____________________

                                   October 6, 1997

                                 ____________________



























                      Per  Curiam.  We have carefully reviewed the record
___________



            and conclude that the various  orders of dismissal entered by



            the  district judge  were  entirely  appropriate.    We  also



            conclude  that,  as  to  the  remaining  claims  against  the



            remaining  defendants,  the  magistrate  judge  appropriately



            granted  summary judgment for the reasons explained at length



            in  his  memorandum  opinion.    The  new evidence  that  the



            appellant proffers cannot be considered on appeal, see United
___ ______



            States v. Kobrosky,  711 F.2d 449, 456 (1st  Cir. 1983), and,
______    ________



            thus, cannot affect  the outcome.  Similarly, the  new issues



            that the appellant seeks to raise for  the first time are not



            properly before us.  See Martinez v. Colon, 54 F.3d 980,  987
___ ________    _____



            (1st Cir.),  cert. denied, 116  s. Ct. 515 (1995).   Finally,
_____ ______



            certain skeletal allegations of  error, presented without any



            developed argumentation, do  not warrant review.   See United
___ ______



            States  v.  Zannino,  895  F.2d   1,  17  (1st  Cir.   1990).
______      _______



            Consequently, they do not warrant comment here.



                      We  need  go no  further.   The  judgment  below is



            summarily affirmed.  See 1st Cir. R. 27.1.
___



                      Affirmed.
________



























                                         -2-