Lewis v. Textron Automotive ( 1997 )

USCA1 Opinion

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________





        No. 97-1751





                                     ALLAN LEWIS,



                                Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                          v.



                  TEXTRON AUTOMOTIVE INTERIORS AND JAMES D. HOUSTON,



                                Defendants, Appellees.



                                 ____________________





                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE



                    [Hon. James R. Muirhead, U.S. District Judge]
___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                 Lynch, Circuit Judge,
_____________

                     Aldrich and Campbell, Senior Circuit Judges.
_____________________



                                 ____________________



            Allan Lewis on brief pro se.
___________

            Don A. Banta, Ann L. Crane and Banta, Cox & Hennessy on brief  for
____________  ____________     _____________________

        appellees.





                                 ____________________




December 15, 1997

                                 ____________________



































                 Per Curiam.   We have carefully reviewed the  briefs and
__________



            record on  appeal and  affirm the judgment  below.   The only



            issue the appellant argues in his brief, thus the only matter



            before us,1 is whether there was a genuine issue that a plant
1



            closing caused layoffs  triggering the Worker  Adjustment and



            Retraining  Notification Act.  29  U.S.C.    2101-2109.  When
_



            the appellee presented evidence that a plant  closing did not



            cause the layoffs of  which the appellant complained, it  was



            incumbent  upon  the appellant  to adduce  contrary evidence.



            Celotex Corporation v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1989).  He
___________________    _______



            did not do so.2
2



                 Affirmed.  Loc. R. 27.1.
________












































____________________



               1 See United States v.  Zannino, 895 F.2d 1, 17 (1st  Cir.
1 ___ _____________     _______

            1990).



               2 Accordingly, appellant's motions for attorney's fees and
2

            pre-argument conference are also denied.



                                         -2-