
USCA1 Opinion

	




          June 2, 1995                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCIUT                                 ____________________        No. 95-1124                                  RALPH J. CATALDO,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                                  CNA INSURANCE CO.,                                 Defendant, Appellee.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE                     [Hon. Morton A. Brody, U.S. District Judge]                                            ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                               Torruella, Chief Judge.                                          ___________                           Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges.                                            ______________                                 ____________________            Ralph J. Cataldo on brief pro se.            ________________            Glenn H. Robinson, Thompson & Bowie on brief for appellee.            _________________  ________________                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                 Per Curiam.  We  have read carefully the record  in this                 __________            case and the briefs of  the parties.  We have  considered the            various claims raised  by appellant and find  none to possess            merit.   We affirm the grant of summary judgment to appellee,            essentially for  the reasons given  by the district  court in            its memorandum and order, dated January 9, 1995.                   Appellant's motion  to "strike or vacate  court order of            April 18,  1995," is  denied as  moot.   While we agree  with                                  ______            appellee  that   the  statements  contained   in  appellant's            "notification  of  the  creation  of  false  and   fictitious            evidence" were  completely without  foundation  and were  not            properly presented to this court, we do not deem it necessary            to grant  appellee's motion  to strike the  "notification" as            the court  has disregarded  it in  the consideration  of this            case.   See Fine v.  Paramount Pictures, Inc.,  171 F.2d 571,                    ___ ____     _______________________            575 (7th Cir. 1948).                 Affirmed.                  ________
