[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

No. 97-1469

RALPH J. CATALDO,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL ROBERTS, ET AL.,

Defendants, Appellees.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

[Hon. Gene Carter, U.S. District Judge]

[Hon. David M. Cohen, U.S. Magistrate Judge]

Before

Selya, Boudin and Lynch, Circuit Judges.

Ralph J. Cataldo on brief pro se.

Andrew Ketterer, Attorney General, and Peter J. Brann, Assistant

Attorney General, on brief for appellees Michael Roberts and Michael Morrison. William R. Fisher, Ivy L. Frignoca and Monaghan, Leahy, Hochadel

& Libby on brief for appellees Edward Reynolds and Penobscot County

Sheriff's Department. Harold C. Hamilton and Logan, Kurr & Hamilton on brief for

appellee BettyLynn Trusz.

October 6, 1997

Per Curiam. We have carefully reviewed the record

and conclude that the various orders of dismissal entered by

the district judge were entirely appropriate. We also

conclude that, as to the remaining claims against the

remaining defendants, the magistrate judge appropriately

granted summary judgment for the reasons explained at length

in his memorandum opinion. The new evidence that the

appellant proffers cannot be considered on appeal, see United

States v. Kobrosky,

(1st Cir. 1983), and,

thus, cannot affect the outcome. Similarly, the new issues

that the appellant seeks to raise for the first time are not

properly before us. See Martinez v. Colon,

(1st Cir.), cert. denied, 116 s. Ct. 515 (1995). Finally,

certain skeletal allegations of error, presented without any

developed argumentation, do not warrant review. See United

States v. Zannino,

(1st Cir. 1990).

Consequently, they do not warrant comment here.

We need go no further. The judgment below is

summarily affirmed. See 1st Cir. R. 27.1.

Affirmed.

-2-