Professional Documents
Culture Documents
94-1341
LEANDERS H. SMITH,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
WGBH-TV,
Defendant, Appellee.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Douglas P. Woodlock, U.S. District Judge]
___________________
____________________
Before
Selya, Cyr and Boudin,
Circuit Judges.
______________
____________________
Leanders H. Smith on brief pro se.
_________________
Alan D. Rose, Paul G. Lannon and
Nutter, McClennen
& Fish
_____________ _______________
_________________________
Memorandum In Support Of Motion for Summary Disposition for appelle
____________________
____________________
Per Curiam.
__________
court's
or other
We affirm.1
court's dismissal of
appellee
action against
According
to Smith's
affidavit,
the
1989
district
court
conversation with
not a
in
recorded
1981
to
telephone
in 1984-85, as
WGBH
had apparently
notation
made
connection
relevant
by a
with
part,
Salisbury's
union
1982
the
stated
letter
also submitted
Eugene Salisbury,
labor grievance
respect to
certain tapes
Smith
attorney,
notation
December 1993
represented.
settlement.
simply
to Smith
tapes has to
which you
alleged
"tapes,"
a
in
In
but
explained
that
do with
your
contained John
____________________
1. Since the facts and legal arguments are adequately
presented in the briefs and record and our decisional process
would not be significantly aided by oral argument, we hereby
deny Smith's motion for oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P.
___
34(a).
Smith's
motion clearly
himself acknowledges
the same
the
had
in his brief, he
no merit.
As
Smith
alleged misrepresentation to
Orders
of the
Court
and for
the
Court to
Enter
the court.
In
testified that
before 1982.
the
Default
That motion
submitted a copy
of
court,
the court
by
dismissing
at least portions
of the
from the
relevant
misrepresentation by
tape WGBH
involved in the
did
asserted.
not
It is
WGBH.
letter constitute
Neither
date from
1984-85,
as
one states
WGBH
of the
or a tape
had apparently
so.
But
that
so was
reopen
his
case on
evidence.
the court,
Therefore, the
ground
that
Smith had
newly
-3-
Smith
also
argues that
Salisbury's
notation and
letter
to the
1982 labor
waived
grievance.
had
grievance settlement,
in which
WGBH had
out of the
no jurisdiction to base
its dismissal of
argument
of reasons.
in
this
respect
fails
the
court
for
the
tape
in
an
attempt
relitigate
show the
possessing,
Second,
relevant
question
at least portions of
and letter
discussed
in
settlement included
court in 1989
the district
connection
the one
by WGBH.
with
had found
alone show,
the
1982
actually given to
case.
say, let
denied
VII
discovery period.
do not
he had
Title
court was a
that
court that
that the
grievance
the district
to explain to
some earlier
time.
(On appeal
to this court, he
says that
-4-
the
district court
Smith's motion
See
___
to him anonymously in
met the
had
no
reason
December 1993.)
to believe
that
60(b) relief.
for a
P. 59 (b)
the
above
merit,
discussion
and Smith
had
show
shows,
no legitimate
misrepresentation
culpability for
WGBH
had
intentionally
as alleged,
motion
basis
for
Smith's
nor did
it relieve
in
any
Smith of
to WGBH.
Affirmed. Double costs awarded to appellee WGBH.
_________________________________________________
-5-