
USCA1 Opinion

	




          March 27, 1996                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 95-2030                                C. D. DI GIAMBATTISTA,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                             MICHAEL J. DOHERTY, ET AL.,                                Defendants, Appellees.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                     [Hon. A. David Mazzone, U.S. District Judge]                                             ___________________                   [Hon. Reginald C. Lindsay, U.S. District Judge]                                              ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Torruella, Chief Judge,                                           ___________                           Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges.                                            ______________                                 ____________________            C. D. Di Giambattista on brief pro se.            _____________________                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                 Per Curiam.  The  judgment is affirmed substantially for                 __________            the reasons enumerated by  the district court in its  pair of            decisions  dated  November 2,  1993  and  September 1,  1995,            respectively.  We add that plaintiff has proffered no grounds            for concluding that Judge Mazzone's refusal to recuse himself            from  the  case  (prior  to its  reassignment  for  unrelated            reasons) constituted an abuse of discretion.  See, e.g., Town                                                          ___  ____  ____            of Norfolk v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 968 F.2d            __________    _____________________________________            1438, 1460 (1st Cir. 1992).   Nor has he pointed to a genuine            issue  of  material fact  that  would preclude  the  award of            summary judgment in favor of defendants Henry and Doherty; as            Judge  Lindsay explained,  the evidence  was  undisputed that            plaintiff was  arrested as a result of  his abusive behavior.            Plaintiff's remaining  contentions, to  the extent  they have            been advanced in something  more than a "perfunctory manner,"            McIntosh  v. Antonio, 71 F.3d 29, 38 (1st Cir. 1995) (quoting            ________     _______            Ryan v. Royal  Ins. Co. of  America, 916  F.2d 731, 734  (1st            ____    ___________________________            Cir. 1990)), prove equally unavailing.                 Affirmed.  See Loc. R. 27.1.                 ____________________________                                         -2-
