Opinion
No. 04-2632.
December 1, 2005.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS; [Hon. Michael A. Ponsor, U.S. District Judge].
Behzad A. Samimi on brief pro se.
Peter O. Hughes and Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak Stewart, P.C. on brief for appellee.
Before Boudin, Chief Judge, Torruella and Howard, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff appeals from district court orders granting defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint and denying plaintiff's motion to reconsider the dismissal. Reviewing the dismissal of the complaintde novo in light of the record and the submissions on appeal, we see no error. Plaintiff's complaint was properly dismissed for failure to state any cognizable claim. There was no abuse of discretion in the denial of plaintiff's motion for reconsideration.
We do not discuss defendant's separate contention that the appeal fails because of plaintiff's flagrant failure to comply with the procedural requirements of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Apro se party is obligated to comply with procedural rules. Ahmed v.Rosenblatt, 118 F.3d 886, 890 (1st Cir. 1997). Because plaintiff's appeal lacks substantive merit, we elect to proceed on that basis.
While plaintiff attempts to assert new claims and to present additional documents, because these matters were not brought to the attention of the district court, they cannot be considered on appeal. Evangelista v.Secretary of Health Human Servs., 826 F.2d 136, 144 (1st Cir. 1987). To the extent plaintiff argues that he should be permitted to amend the complaint, he did not file a motion to amend the complaint in the district court, and, in any event, has offered no reason to believe that an amendment might cure the defects in the complaint. Plaintiff's allegation of judicial bias also was not raised in the district court and is meritless in any event.
Affirmed. See 1st Cir. R. 27(c).