
USCA1 Opinion

	




                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 96-2243                                    FRIEDRICH LU,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                              DAVID F. HADLOCK, ET AL.,                                Defendants, Appellees.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                  [Hon. George A. O'Toole, Jr., U.S. District Judge]                                                ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                 Selya, Circuit Judge,                                        _____________                              Cyr, Senior Circuit Judge,                                   ____________________                              and Boudin, Circuit Judge.                                          _____________                                 ____________________            Friedrich Lu on brief pro se.            ____________            George A.  Berman, Deirdre M.  Giblin and  Posternak, Blankstein &            _________________  __________________      _______________________        Lund, L.L.P. on brief for appellees Jeffrey C. Turk, David F. Hadlock,        ____________        Karen  Schultz Breda, George A.  Berman, Andrea F.  Nuciforo, Jr., and        Posternak, Blankstein & Lund, L.L.P.            Russell F.  Conn and  Conn, Kavanaugh,  Rosenthal, Peisch  & Ford,            ________________      ____________________________________________        L.L.P.  on brief  for appellees  Michael J.  Powers, Russell  F. Conn,        ______        Maria  E. DeLuzio,  and  Conn, Kavanaugh,  Rosenthal,  Peisch &  Ford,        L.L.P.              Laurence M. Starr on brief for appellee Laurence M. Starr.            _________________            Ronald  L. Brandt  on brief  for  appellees  Ronald L.  Brandt and            _________________        Brandt, Kramer & Figman.            Cameron F. Kerry, Michael J. Gill  and Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris,            ________________  _______________      ___________________________        Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. on brief for appellees Richard Portal, Cameron        _______________________        F. Kerry,  Michael J.  Gill, Wayne  P. Godin  and Mintz,  Levin, Cohn,        Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.            Acheson H. Callaghan, Jr., Kenneth W.  Salinger and Palmer & Dodge            _________________________  ____________________     ______________        L.L.P.  on  brief  for appellees  Gerald  T.  Anglin  and Tommasino  &        ______        Tommasino.            Jeffrey C. Turk and McCullough, Stievater  & Polvere on brief  for            _______________     ________________________________        appellees Willard S. Stievater and McCullough, Stievater & Polvere.                                 ____________________                                  FEBRUARY 28, 1997                                 ____________________                                         -3-                 Per  Curiam.   For  the reasons  stated in  the district                 ___________            court order, appellant's complaint properly was dismissed for            want  of federal  subject matter  jurisdiction.   Further, we            perceive no  error or  abuse  of discretion  in the  district            court's  summary  rejection  of   appellant's  post-dismissal            motions for  reconsideration, recusal,  and amendment  of the            complaint.  And  we find no  merit in appellant's  additional            contentions  regarding  discovery,  sanctions,  and  attorney            conduct.                 The  judgment is affirmed.   See 1st Cir.  Loc. R. 27.1.                                  ________    ___            Appellant's  motions  for default  and  expedited review  are            denied,  as are his requests for costs and for publication of            ______            this opinion.                                         -3-
