Court Opinion

ID: 2964719
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:30:04.560889+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:21:08.504498
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 96-2147

                           LUDWIG HAKEN, I AND NAOMI HAKEN,

                                     Appellants,

                                          v.

                               THE MONEY STORE, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

                   [Hon. Joseph A. DiClerico, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                 Selya, Circuit Judge,
                                        _____________
                              Cyr, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                   ____________________
                              and Lynch, Circuit Judge.
                                         _____________

                                 ____________________

            Ludwig L. Haken, I on brief pro se.
            __________________
            Mark G. May and Thornton & Thornton, P.A. on brief for appellee.
            ___________     _________________________

                                 ____________________

                                     May 7, 1997
                                 ____________________

                      Per Curiam.  The  district court did not  abuse its
                      __________

            discretion   in  dismissing  debtor's   appeal  for  lack  of

            prosecution when  debtor failed to  file a brief  within Rule

            8009's 15-day limit.   The July 25, 1996 notice  of docketing

            and briefing  deadline, which  clearly referenced Rule  8009,

            was  not confusing  and  should not  have  misled debtor  had

            debtor read Rule  8009.  Debtor's other arguments are outside

            the scope of the  present appeal from the August 14, 1996 and

            September 19, 1996 orders dismissing for lack of prosecution,

            but are, in any event, meritless.

                      Affirmed.
                      ________

                                         -2-