Tamborelli v. Southern New England School of Law , 116 F. App'x 290 ( 2004 )

Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter
Citation Limited Pursuant to 1st Cir. Loc. R. 32.3
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 03-2663
BRIAN TAMBORELLI,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
SOUTHERN NEW ENGLAND SCHOOL OF LAW, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Nancy Gertner, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Selya, Lynch and Lipez,
Circuit Judges.
Brian D. Tamborelli on brief pro se.
Allen N. David, Elizabeth A. Houlding and Peabody & Arnold
LLP, on brief for appellees.
December 3, 2004
Per Curiam. Brian Tamborelli has appealed the district
court's dismissal of his complaint, in which he contends that
Southern New England School of Law (SNESL) and several of its
officers solicited his attendance and tuition money by, inter alia,
fraudulently misrepresenting the status of its ability to obtain
certification by the American Bar Association (ABA). We have
reviewed the parties' briefs and the record on appeal. We affirm.
We have recently considered substantially identical
actions filed by other SNESL graduates. See Rodi v. S. New Engl.
Sch. of Law, ___ F.3d ___ (1st Cir. 2004) [2004 WL 2537204];
Jolicoeur v. S. New Engl. Sch. of Law, 104 Fed. Appx. 745 (1st Cir.
2004) (per curiam). Tamborelli's action suffered from the same
defect as Jolicoeur's: it was not timely commenced. By no later
than December 1999, Tamborelli knew that any statements regarding
the imminent likelihood of ABA certification were false. By that
time, the ABA had twice denied SNESL's application for
accreditation and, in derogation of a promise Tamborelli alleges
was made, SNESL had failed to appeal that denial. Tamborelli makes
no cogent argument for any later accrual date. Tamborelli's
action, filed in July of 2003, was, therefore, barred by the three-
year statute of limitations. Unlike the complaint filed by
plaintiff Rodi, the timeliness of Tamborelli's federal complaint is
not redeemed by any savings statute. Cf. Rodi v. S. New Engl. Sch.
of Law, ___ F.3d at ___ [2004 WL 2537204, at *10].
-2-
We reject Tamborelli's criticism that the district court
did not allow him to amend his complaint. For one thing he never
sought to amend his complaint in the district court. For another
thing, nothing he has stated in his appellate briefing suggests
that he could successfully overcome the time bar. Indeed, his
reply brief expresses his own contradictory views on whether any
amendment would be futile.
Finally, we find no abuse of discretion in the district
court's failure to recuse itself. See United States v. Ayala, 289
F.3d 16, 27 (1st Cir. 2002) (limning the standard of review).
We need go no further. For the reasons stated, the order
of dismissal is affirmed.
-3-