Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
No. 96-1074
BARRY BROWN,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
Defendants, Appellees.
____________________
____________________
Before
____________________
Elliott Fine
_____________
and
on
brief
appellant.
John M. Townsend,
_________________
General Counsel,
Joan T. Kennedy,
________________
Assist
_________________
_____
____________________
Per Curiam.
___________
record,
it
Upon
careful review
clearly appears
substantial question,
that
and we
of
this
the briefs
appeal presents
perceive no reason
and
no
to reverse
Specifically,
plaintiff's
claim.
prison
district
negligence were
See Daniels v.
___ _______
officials for
Manarite v.
________
not act
with the
stated against
protect");
agree
allegations of
state a federal
327, 331-33
we
with "deliberate
insufficient to
Williams, 474
________
U.S.
"negligent failure
(dismissing
court that
to
F.2d 953,
506
U.S.
837
(1992).
harassment
by
Even
the prison
plaintiff's
staff
sketchy
was grounded
claim
in
of
the same
his complaint.
On that
determined that
court properly
judgment on any
federal claims.
The
would not
district
court
exercise pendent
also properly
determined
jurisdiction over
any remaining
U.S.C.
that it
See 28
___
484 U.S.
discretion to
retain
or
consideration
dismiss
the
remaining
of factors such
convenience, and
state
as comity,
claims,
upon
judicial economy,
here.
No abuse
of the
tolling provision of 28
by
the dismissal.
U.S.C.
1367(d), he was
not harmed
statute of
over
federal
which
jurisdiction
reduces the
until
limitations on
court
30 days
has
after
any state
exercised
its
1367(d)
supplemental
dismissal and
claim
thus
following
Colocotroni,
___________
asked the
601 F.2d
39,
42 (1st
in Puerto Rico
___________
v. SS Zoe
______
Cir. 1979)),
plaintiff
Plaintiff apparently
dismissed
on his
in state court.
court granted
By orders
plaintiff's
motions and
remanded
the
case.
the district
-3-
yet acted
on
that
motion.
In
other
words,
the
district
court
has
before us
on appeal.
1996, orders to be
entered
"[i]f
nullities.
(1st Cir.
1991) (giving no
without compliance
courts did
not
See Toscano v.
___ _______
with the
demand that
Chandris, 934
________
effect to
Colocotroni procedure;
___________
litigants recognize
adrift
in
proceedings").
sea
of
Once
competing
our
orders
decrees
mandate
and
issues,
and
would be
duplicative
however,
on plaintiff's post-judgment
the
motions
and defendants'
party desire
to appeal from
Should either
rulings, a
The
motion to
Loc. R. 27.1.
-4-