David B. Rowe v. Superintendent, Merrimack County Jail

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION–NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 99-1611
DAVID B. ROWE,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
SUPERINTENDENT, MERRIMACK COUNTY JAIL,
Defendant, Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
[Hon. Steven J. McAuliffe, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Lynch, Circuit Judge,
Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge,
and Lipez, Circuit Judge.
David B. Rowe on brief pro se.
Donald E. Gardner and Devine, Millimet & Branch on brief for
appellee.
March 31, 2000

-- 1 of 6 --

Per Curiam. David B. Rowe appeals the district
court judgment granting the defendant's motion for summary
judgment. Upon de novo review, see Anderson v. Angelone,
123 F.3d 1197, 1198 (9th Cir. 1997), we affirm the judgment
below, essentially for the reasons stated in the district
court's order, dated April 13, 1999. We add only that the
district court did not abuse its discretion in denying
Rowe's motion for appointment of counsel and in granting
defendant an extension of time in which to file her motion
for summary judgment.
Affirmed.

-- 2 of 6 --

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION–NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 99-1611
DAVID B. ROWE,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
SUPERINTENDENT, MERRIMACK COUNTY JAIL,
Defendant, Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
[Hon. Steven J. McAuliffe, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Lynch, Circuit Judge,
Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge,
and Lipez, Circuit Judge.
David B. Rowe on brief pro se.
Donald E. Gardner and Devine, Millimet & Branch on brief for
appellee.
March 31, 2000

-- 3 of 6 --

Per Curiam. David B. Rowe appeals the district
court judgment granting the defendant's motion for summary
judgment. Upon de novo review, see Anderson v. Angelone,
123 F.3d 1197, 1198 (9th Cir. 1997), we affirm the judgment
below, essentially for the reasons stated in the district
court's order, dated April 13, 1999. We add only that the
district court did not abuse its discretion in denying
Rowe's motion for appointment of counsel and in granting
defendant an extension of time in which to file her motion
for summary judgment.
Affirmed.

-- 4 of 6 --

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION–NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 99-1611
DAVID B. ROWE,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
SUPERINTENDENT, MERRIMACK COUNTY JAIL,
Defendant, Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
[Hon. Steven J. McAuliffe, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Lynch, Circuit Judge,
Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge,
and Lipez, Circuit Judge.
David B. Rowe on brief pro se.
Donald E. Gardner and Devine, Millimet & Branch on brief for
appellee.
March 31, 2000

-- 5 of 6 --

Per Curiam. David B. Rowe appeals the district
court judgment granting the defendant's motion for summary
judgment. Upon de novo review, see Anderson v. Angelone,
123 F.3d 1197, 1198 (9th Cir. 1997), we affirm the judgment
below, essentially for the reasons stated in the district
court's order, dated April 13, 1999. We add only that the
district court did not abuse its discretion in denying
Rowe's motion for appointment of counsel and in granting
defendant an extension of time in which to file her motion
for summary judgment.
Affirmed.

-- 6 of 6 --