Cataldo v. Roberts

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
No. 97-1469
RALPH J. CATALDO,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL ROBERTS, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE
[Hon. Gene Carter, U.S. District Judge]
[Hon. David M. Cohen, U.S. Magistrate Judge]
Before
Selya, Boudin and Lynch,
Circuit Judges.
Ralph J. Cataldo on brief pro se.
Andrew Ketterer, Attorney General, and Peter J. Brann, Assistant
Attorney General, on brief for appellees Michael Roberts and Michael
Morrison.
William R. Fisher, Ivy L. Frignoca and Monaghan, Leahy, Hochadel
& Libby on brief for appellees Edward Reynolds and Penobscot County
Sheriff's Department.
Harold C. Hamilton and Logan, Kurr & Hamilton on brief for
appellee BettyLynn Trusz.
October 6, 1997
Per Curiam. We have carefully reviewed the record
and conclude that the various orders of dismissal entered by
the district judge were entirely appropriate. We also
conclude that, as to the remaining claims against the
remaining defendants, the magistrate judge appropriately
granted summary judgment for the reasons explained at length
in his memorandum opinion. The new evidence that the
appellant proffers cannot be considered on appeal, see United
States v. Kobrosky, 711 F.2d 449, 456 (1st Cir. 1983), and,
thus, cannot affect the outcome. Similarly, the new issues
that the appellant seeks to raise for the first time are not
properly before us. See Martinez v. Colon, 54 F.3d 980, 987
(1st Cir.), cert. denied, 116 s. Ct. 515 (1995). Finally,
certain skeletal allegations of error, presented without any
developed argumentation, do not warrant review. See United
States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1, 17 (1st Cir. 1990).
Consequently, they do not warrant comment here.
We need go no further. The judgment below is
summarily affirmed. See 1st Cir. R. 27.1.
Affirmed.
-2-