McLaughlin v. Warden ( 1999 )

USCA1 Opinion

       [NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]

                 United States Court of Appeals

                     For the First Circuit











No. 99-1391



                    ROBERT A. MCLAUGHLIN, SR.,



                      Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                v.



               WARDEN, NEW HAMPSHIRE STATE PRISON,



                       Defendant, Appellee.







           APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE



       [Hon. Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr., U.S. District Judge]







                              Before



                    Selya, Boudin and Lynch,

                        Circuit Judges.











     Robert A. McLaughlin, Sr. on brief pro se.

     Steven M. Houran, Deputy Attorney General, Daniel J. Mullen,

Senior Assistant Attorney General, and Andrew B. Livernois,

Attorney, on brief for appellee.











December 28, 1999















            Per Curiam.  Robert A. McLaughlin appeals pro se from

  the district court order granting defendant's motion for

  summary judgment.  Having conducted a careful, de novo review

  of the record, we affirm for essentially the reasons stated in

  the district court's detailed and well-reasoned Order, dated

  February 26, 1999.  We add only the following comment.

            McLaughlin made reference in his Opposition to the

  Motion for Summary Judgment to his treatment by the authorities

  at the North Florida Reception Center where he was held for

  three months in 1994, including the alleged refusal to provide

  him with his legal files or to allow him to contact the court

  where his state habeas petition was pending.  McLaughlin's

  brief focuses on those allegations, although they were not

  included in his complaint.  Treating McLaughlin's new

  allegations in his Opposition to the Motion for Summary

  Judgment as a motion to amend the complaint, there was no abuse

  of discretion in the failure of the district court to allow the

  amendment. See Resolution Trust Corp. v. Gold, 30 F.3d 251, 253

  (1st Cir. 1994) (where motion to amend is filed while summary

  judgment motion is pending, plaintiff is "required to

  demonstrate to the district court that the proposed amendments

  were supported by 'substantial and convincing evidence'").

            The district court order granting defendant's motion

  for summary judgment is affirmed.