After a thorough review of the record and of the parties’ submissions, we affirm, essentially for the reasons set out in the district court’s Memorandum and Order dated July 11, 2001, and its Order dated February 4, 2002. We add that it appears Solomon has forfeited his civil RICO and invasion of privacy claims by failing to provide any developed argument in support of those claims in his appellate brief. We find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s refusal to allow Solomon’s late-filed motion to amend, see Maine State Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council v. U.S. Dept. of Labor, 359 F.3d 14, 18 (1st Cir. 2004); and we reject his suggestion that Judge O’Toole was required to recuse himself from this matter. See In re Boston’s Children First, 244 F.3d 164, 167 (1st Cir. 2001) (recusal required only where facts exist which “an objective, knowledgeable member of the public would find to be a reasonable basis for doubting the judge’s impartiality.”).

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