Lewis v. Textron Automotive ( 1997 )

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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-