Gaetano P. Deluca v. Town of Hingham

Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter
Citation Limited Pursuant to 1st Cir. Loc. R. 32.3
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 05-1208
GAETANO P. DELUCA,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
TOWN OF HINGHAM, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Robert E. Keeton, Senior U.S. District Judge]
Before
Selya, Lynch, and Lipez, Circuit Judges.
Gaetano P. DeLuca on brief pro se.
Stacey G. Bloom, William P. Breen, Jr., James A. Toomey and
Murphy, Hesse, Toomey & Lehane on brief for appellees.
November 21, 2005

-- 1 of 2 --

Accordingly, we deny the appellant’s remaining, pending 1
motions.
-2-
Per Curiam. After carefully considering the briefs and
record on appeal, we affirm the judgment below.1
In relevant part, the appellant argues that the elements
of claim preclusion were not satisfied because a final judgment on
the merits was not rendered in his earlier, state action. However,
the dismissal of the state action as time-barred was a judgment on
the merits. See Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211, 228
(1995). See also DaLuz v. Dep’t of Corr., 434 Mass. 40, 45
(2001)(outlining elements of claim preclusion).
Irrespective of claim preclusion, he also argues that
fairness required entertaining the merits of his claims. Although
claim preclusion may perpetuate inequity in some particular cases,
the doctrine’s salutary purposes of promoting repose and judicial
economy would be undermined by making ad hoc determinations of the
equities in individual cases. United States v. Cunan, 156 F.3d
110, 119 (1 Cir. 1998); Rose v. Town of Harwich, 778 F.2d 77, 82 st
(1985).
Affirmed. See 1st Cir. R. 27(c).

-- 2 of 2 --