Deluca v. Town of Hingham

Full title: GAETANO P. DELUCA, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. TOWN OF HINGHAM, ET AL.…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit

Date published: Nov 21, 2005

155 F. App'x 1 (1st Cir. 2005)

Opinion

No. 05-1208.

November 21, 2005.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS. [Hon. Robert E. Keeton, Senior U.S. District Judge].

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.

Before Selya, Lynch, and Lipez, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

After carefully considering the briefs and record on appeal, weaffirm the judgment below.¹

1 Accordingly, we deny the appellant's remaining, pending motions.

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^st Cir. 1998); Rose v. Town of Harwich, 778 F.2d 77, 82 (1985).

Affirmed. See 1st Cir. R. 27(c).