ROBERT S. SNYDER, Plaintiff, Appellant,
SERAFINA COLLURA; RALPH GAUDET; PATRICK POWELL; CITY OF WALTHAM; Defendants, Appellees, JEANNETTE A. MCCARTHY; BERNADETTE D. SEWELL; Defendants
As Amended January 29, 2016.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS. Hon. Rya W. Zobel, U.S. District Judge.
Zaheer A. Samee, with whom Leonard A. Frisoli and Frisoli Associates, P.C., were on brief, for appellant.
Thomas R. Donohue, with whom Deidre Brennan Regan and Brody, Hardoon, Perkins & Kesten, LLP, were on brief, for appellee Serafina Collura.
Bernadette Dunn Sewell, Assistant City Solicitor, City of Waltham Law Department, for appellees Ralph Gaudet and Patrick Powell.
Michelle Learned, Assistant City Solicitor, City of Waltham Law Department, for appellee City of Waltham.
Before Kayatta, Stahl, and Barron, Circuit Judges.
KAYATTA, Circuit Judge.
In 2009, Robert Snyder sued the City of Waltham, Massachusetts, (" Waltham" ) and several of its officials alleging that their vindictive application of a local zoning board's authority violated state law as well as the United interlocutory appeal, that two individual defendants were immune to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because Snyder's Equal Protection claim--the " only preserved federal claim" in the case --failed because Snyder did not show that the defendants had treated him differently than any other similarly-situated individual. Snyder v. Gaudet, 756 F.3d 30, 34-36 (1st Cir. 2014) (" Snyder I" ) . In this opinion, we now affirm the district court's dismissal of Snyder's remaining claims and its rejection of his belated and likely insufficient effort to assert new theories of recovery.
Snyder's case has its genesis in his decision to terminate the employment by his company of then-City Councilor Serafina Collura, who then turned into an avenging whistle-blower, goading Waltham to pursue an apparent zoning violation by Snyder. Id. at 32-33. Further discussion of the facts can be found in our earlier case. Id.
Snyder's original complaint, filed in December 2009 and still operative, named five counts. Count one alleged that the defendants conspired to deprive Snyder of his Constitutional rights. 42 U.S.C. § § 1983, 1985, 1986. It stated that Snyder's rights to substantive due process and equal protection of law under the Fourteenth Amendment were " [a]mong" the rights grounding his section 1983 count, but that it was " not limited to" these particular rights. Counts two through four alleged various violations of Massachusetts state law, naming abuse of process, malicious prosecution, and civil conspiracy. Snyder's fifth count invoked the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act (" MCRA" ) to redress alleged violations of his " state and federal constitutional rights and liberties."
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b), the district court set a deadline of December 31, 2010 for ...