Fornaro v. McManus

USCA1 Opinion [NOT FOR PUBLICATION-NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT] United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit ____________________ No. 98-1077 REX FORNARO, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. JAMES MCMANUS, ET AL., Defendants, Appellees. ____________________ APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE [Hon. Shane Devine, Senior U.S. District Judge] ____________________ Before Torruella, Chief Judge, Stahl, Circuit Judge, and Rosenn, Senior Circuit Judge. _____________________ Robert E. Murphy, Jr., with whom Paul L. Apple and Wadleigh, Starr, Peters, Dunn & Chiesa were on brief, for appellant. Peter Bennett, with whom Frederick B. Finberg and Bennett Bennett and Troiano, P.A. were on brief, for appellees Pamela Cantin and Gary E. Ellmer. Dorit S. Heimer, with whom Levett, Rockwood & Sanders was on brief, for appellees George Lindemann, et al. ____________________ July 10, 1998 ____________________ Per Curiam. Appellant's motion to amend paragraph 10 of the complaint is granted. Upon full review of the record in this case, we do not agree with the district court's finding that it lacked personal jurisdiction over four of the parties. This conclusion, however, does not alter the ultimate result of the case because we affirm the district court's holding that the appellant failed to state a legally cognizable claim and extend that holding to include those four parties. Lastly, we express no opinion as to the merits of the district court's extension of the Burford abstention doctrine to non-state administrative proceedings, as it is unnecessary to support our decision. Appellees' Ellmer and Cantin motion for sanctions is grantedand is referred to the district court for a hearing and appropriate action. Double costs are granted to appellees.