
USCA1 Opinion

	




          October 10, 1996      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 96-1693                                 NORMAN E. DICKINSON,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                                WESLEY RIDLON, ET AL.,                                Defendants, Appellees.                                 ____________________                     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.                                            ______________                                 ____________________            Norman E. Dickinson on brief pro se.            ___________________            Monaghan, Leahy, Hochadel, & Libby, William  R. Fisher, and Ivy L.            __________________________________  __________________      ______        Frignoca on brief for appellees.        ________                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                      Per  Curiam.    The  magistrate-judge's  denial  of                      ___________            appellant's motion to postpone the final  pretrial conference            was  tantamount to  an order  to appear  at that  conference.            Appellant thereafter  was not justified in  failing to appear            regardless  whether appellant subjectively  felt prepared for            the  conference or not.    In these  circumstances, the court            did not abuse  its discretion when appellant failed to attend            the  April  8,  1996  conference.    That appellant  was  not            expressly  advised that  failure  to appear  could result  in            dismissal does not require a different result.  Any belief on            appellant's  part that he could flout the scheduling order in            the manner he did was completely unjustified.                      Affirmed.  Loc. R. 27.1.                      ________                                         -2-
