Pacheco v. Mass. Teacher's Asso, (1st Cir. 2001)

Text

---

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION-NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]

United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 01-1160

RICHARD PACHECO,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

MASSACHUSETTS TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, NEW BEDFORD EDUCATORS

ASSOCIATION, JEAN DUVAL, MATTHEW D. JONES,

ARTHUR J. CARON, NEW BEDFORD SCHOOL COMMITTEE,

JOSEPH S. SILVA, CYNTHIA BARBOZA, KEVIN J. FINNERTY,

JOAQUIM NOBREGA, CARLOS PACHECO, J. MARK TREADUP,

RONALD J. WALSH, AND FREDERICK J. KALISZ, JR.,

Defendants, Appellees.



APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS



[Hon. Mark L. Wolf, U.S. District Judge]

Before

Boudin, Chief Judge,

Selya and Lynch, Circuit Judges.

Richard Pacheco on brief pro se.

Donald J. Siegel, Elizabeth A. Sloane and Segal, Roitman &

Coleman on brief for appellees Massachusetts Teachers

Association, New Bedford Educators Association, Matthew D. Jones

and Jean Duval.

Jonathan M. Silverstein and Kopelman and Paige, P.C. on

brief for appellees Arthur J. Caron, New Bedford School

Committee, Joseph S. Silva, Cynthia Barboza, Kevin J. Finnerty,

Jaquim Nobrega, Carlos Pacheco, J. Mark Treadup, Ronald J.

Walsh, and Frederick M. Kalisz, Jr.

SEPTEMBER 21, 2001

Per Curiam. Richard Pacheco appeals from an adverse

judgment in his civil rights suit against various

defendants. In pertinent part, Pacheco, who is a public

school employee subject to a collective bargaining agreement

between the school committee defendant and the union

defendant, claimed that he had been suspended without pay

for five days in violation of his federal due process rights

after he failed to pay the service fee required by the

collective bargaining agreement. The district judge granted

certain defendants' motion to dismiss when Pacheco did not

file a timely opposition,(1) and he granted the remaining

defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings in a

Memorandum and Order dated September 29, 2000. We affirm,

essentially for the reasons given by the district judge in

his Memorandum and Order and for the reasons given by the

defendants in their appellate briefs.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

See Loc. R. 27(c).

1. In response to defendants' motion, the judge later struck

a belated opposition. On appeal, Pacheco has not contended that

the judge abused his discretion, or otherwise erred, in striking

his opposition.

---