
USCA1 Opinion

	




                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 97-1751                                     ALLAN LEWIS,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                  TEXTRON AUTOMOTIVE INTERIORS AND JAMES D. HOUSTON,                                Defendants, Appellees.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE                    [Hon. James R. Muirhead, U.S. District Judge]                                             ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                 Lynch, Circuit Judge,                                        _____________                     Aldrich and Campbell, Senior Circuit Judges.                                           _____________________                                 ____________________            Allan Lewis on brief pro se.            ___________            Don A. Banta, Ann L. Crane and Banta, Cox & Hennessy on brief  for            ____________  ____________     _____________________        appellees.                                 ____________________                                                                                     December 15, 1997                                 ____________________                 Per Curiam.   We have carefully reviewed the  briefs and                 __________            record on  appeal and  affirm the judgment  below.   The only            issue the appellant argues in his brief, thus the only matter            before us,1 is whether there was a genuine issue that a plant                      1            closing caused layoffs  triggering the Worker  Adjustment and            Retraining  Notification Act.  29  U.S.C.    2101-2109.  When                                                             _            the appellee presented evidence that a plant  closing did not            cause the layoffs of  which the appellant complained, it  was            incumbent  upon  the appellant  to adduce  contrary evidence.            Celotex Corporation v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1989).  He            ___________________    _______            did not do so.2                            2                 Affirmed.  Loc. R. 27.1.                 ________                                            ____________________               1 See United States v.  Zannino, 895 F.2d 1, 17 (1st  Cir.               1 ___ _____________     _______            1990).                2 Accordingly, appellant's motions for attorney's fees and               2            pre-argument conference are also denied.                                           -2-
