Samimi v. Tyco Healthcare/Ludlow/Kendall-Ludlow, Technical Products, LTP , 157 F. App'x 319 ( 2005 )

Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter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. 04-2632
BEHZAD A. SAMIMI,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
TYCO HEALTHCARE/LUDLOW/KENDALL-LUDLOW,
TECHNICAL PRODUCTS, LTP,
Defendant, Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Michael A. Ponsor, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Boudin, Chief Judge,
Torruella and Howard, Circuit Judges.
Behzad A. Samimi on brief pro se.
Peter O. Hughes and Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak &
Stewart, P.C. on brief for appellee.
December 1, 2005
Per Curiam. Plaintiff appeals from district court orders
granting defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint and denying
plaintiff's motion to reconsider the dismissal.1 Reviewing the
dismissal of the complaint de novo in light of the record and the
submissions on appeal, we see no error. Plaintiff's complaint was
properly dismissed for failure to state any cognizable claim.
There was no abuse of discretion in the denial of plaintiff's
motion for reconsideration.
While plaintiff attempts to assert new claims and to
present additional documents, because these matters were not
brought to the attention of the district court, they cannot be
considered on appeal. Evangelista v. Secretary of Health & Human
Servs., 826 F.2d 136, 144 (1st Cir. 1987). To the extent plaintiff
argues that he should be permitted to amend the complaint, he did
not file a motion to amend the complaint in the district court,
and, in any event, has offered no reason to believe that an
amendment might cure the defects in the complaint. Plaintiff's
allegation of judicial bias also was not raised in the district
court and is meritless in any event.
Affirmed. See 1st Cir. R. 27(c).
1
We do not discuss defendant's separate contention that the
appeal fails because of plaintiff's flagrant failure to comply with
the procedural requirements of the Federal Rules of Appellate
Procedure. A pro se party is obligated to comply with procedural
rules. Ahmed v. Rosenblatt, 118 F.3d 886, 890 (1st Cir. 1997).
Because plaintiff's appeal lacks substantive merit, we elect to
proceed on that basis.
-2-