The petitioner, Dwight Hightower, appeals from a judgment of a single justice of this court denying his petition pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3. We affirm. Hightower filed his petition in the county court after a judge in the underlying case in the trial court allowed the Commonwealth's motion for the production of medical records from the emergency room of a hospital where Hightower was treated after he was allegedly involved in a motor vehicle accident. The single justice denied his petition, and Hightower has filed what appears to be a memorandum pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001). For any of the following reasons, we can affirm the decision of the single justice. First, Hightower failed timely to file his rule 2:21 memorandum. S.J.C. Rule 2:21 (2). Second, Hightower has not demonstrated that the alleged error cannot be remedied in the ordinary course of appeal from any adverse judgment against him. Third, the record before the single justice does not sufficiently lay a foundation for the exclusion of Hightower's records pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 290dd-2 (2006). Fourth, this case does not present the type of exceptional circumstances that warrant the exercise of this court's extraordinary power of general superintendence. See Commonwealth v. Narea, 454 Mass. 1003, 1004 n.1 (2009).

Judgment affirmed.

The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by a memorandum of law.

Sinclair T. Banks for the defendant.

Heidi L. Emmons and Peter T. Linn, a divorced couple with four children, commenced actions in the Probate and Family Court for modification and contempt. Each party prevailed on some claims, and they cross-appealed. The Appeals Court modified the judgments in various respects and, pursuant to a provision in the parties' separation agreement, awarded Emmons $38,000 in attorney's fees. See Emmons v. Linn, 72 Mass. App. Ct. 1118 (2008). Emmons applied for further appellate review, seeking additional attorney's fees, and we remanded the matter to the Appeals Court for further consideration. The Appeals Court concluded that Emmons was entitled to no additional fees. The matter returned to this court for further review of that limited question. [Note 1] After carefully reviewing the case, we agree with the result reached by the Appeals Court. Emmons is entitled to no additional attorney's fees.

So ordered.

Kevin M. Corr for the plaintiff.

Peter T. Linn, pro se.

Peter T. Linn appeals pro se from a judgment of a single justice of this court denying his petition pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3. He had sought relief from judgments entered in the Probate and Family Court, concerning child custody and support matters, and from a decision by the Appeals Court in which he had challenged the underlying judgments. See Emmons v. Linn, 72 Mass. App. Ct. 1118 (2009). This court denied his application for further appellate review. See Emmons v. Linn, 453 Mass. 1103 (2009). Linn has filed a memorandum and appendix pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001). He seeks improperly to invoke this court's superintendence power to relitigate matters that he unsuccessfully sought to challenge in the earlier proceedings. "Our general superintendence power under G. L. c. 211, § 3, is extraordinary and to be exercised sparingly, not as a substitute for the normal appellate process or merely to provide an additional layer of appellate review after the normal process has run its course." Votta v. Police Dep't of Billerica, 444 Mass. 1001, 1001 (2005). See Davidson v. Register of Probate for Essex County, 454 Mass. 1013 (2009). Accordingly, the single justice properly denied his petition.

Judgment affirmed.

The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by a memorandum of law.

Peter T. Linn, pro se.