Court Opinion

ID: 2964689
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:29:44.965502+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:21:08.441070
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 97-1142

                                  PRASEUTH PANTHONG,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                                   MARY E. MAHONEY,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                   [Hon. Nathaniel M. Gorton, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                           Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                     ____________________
                              and Boudin, Circuit Judge.
                                          _____________

                                 ____________________

            Praseuth Panthong on brief pro se.
            _________________
            Terence   P.   O'Malley,   Associate    Counsel,   University   of
            _______________________
        Massachusetts, on brief for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                     May 22, 1997
                                 ____________________

                 Per  Curiam.    The  order  that this  court  issued  on
                 ___________

            December 4, 1995  in appeal no. 95-2043 established  that the

            notice  of default  that  appellant   previously secured  was

            properly vacated and thus is null and void.  That default did

            not  provide   appellant  with  any  basis   for  filing  the

            bankruptcy petition  that gives  rise to the  present appeal.

            Accordingly, the judgment of  the district court is affirmed.
                                                                ________

            See Local Rule 27.1.   Appellant's request for payment  of an
            ___

            administrative expense is moot.
                                      ____

                                         -2-