Court Opinion

ID: 2964372
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:24:41.76749+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:11:08.987262
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 96-1576

                               VINCENT A. TUDISCA, II,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                          JAMES DENNIS LEARY, ETC., ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                     [Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                          Boudin and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________

                                 ____________________

            Vincent A. Tudisca, II on brief pro se.
            ______________________
            Scott  Harshbarger,   Attorney  General,  and   Gail  M.  McKenna,
            __________________                              _________________
        Assistant Attorney General, on brief for appellees.

                                 ____________________

                                   October 16, 1996
                                 ____________________

                      Per Curiam.   We affirm the  district court's March
                      __________

            14, 1996 order denying appellant's request to reopen the time

            for  appealing.   Neither the  mistake in  sending notice  to

            appellant's old  address nor the failure of  a clerk's office

            employee fully to inform appellant how to invoke Fed. R. App.

            P. 4(a)(6) and the time limits for  doing so is sufficient to

            excuse  appellant's  late  appeal.   See,  e.g.,  Hensley  v.
                                                 ___   ____   _______

            Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co., 651 F.2d 226, 229-31 (4th Cir. 1981)
            _______________________

            (noting litigant's responsibility to monitor the  progress of

            his action); United States v. Heller, 957 F.2d 26, 29-31 (1st
                         _______________________

            Cir. 1992)  (limiting the  unique  circumstances doctrine  to

            situations  where a  judicial officer  -- and  not a  clerk's

            office  employee --  assures  a party  that  he has  time  to

            appeal).

                      Affirmed.  Loc. R. 27.1.
                      ________

                                         -2-