[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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, 711 F.2d 449, 456 (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, 54 F.3d 980, 987 (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, 895 F.2d 1, 17 (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.