Court Opinion

ID: 2965585
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:42:17.797587+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:15.437136
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION--NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
                 United States Court of Appeals
                     For the First Circuit

No. 98-1597

                        GEORGE E. KERSEY,

                      Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                v.

                 UNITED STATES AIR FORCE, ET AL.,

                      Defendants, Appellees.
                       ____________________

Nos. 98-1598
     98-1599

                        GEORGE E. KERSEY,

                      Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                v.

                    SHEILA E. WIDNALL, ET AL.,

                      Defendants, Appellees

          APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

        [Hon. George A. O'Toole, Jr., U.S. District Judge]

                              Before

                     Selya, Stahl and Lynch,
                        Circuit Judges.
                                
                                

     George E. Kersey on brief pro se.
     Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney and Michael J.
Pineault, Assistant U.S. Attorney on brief for appellees.

December 10, 1998

                                
                                

    
              Per Curiam.  We have carefully reviewed the record in
    this case, including the briefs of the parties and the
    memorandum and order of the district court.  We affirm the
    grant of summary judgment to defendants/appellees essentially
    for the reasons given by the district court in its memorandum
    and order, dated March 12, 1998. We add only the following
    brief comments.
              Even if we assume arguendo that defendants/appellees
    served their motion to dismiss one day late, Kersey has not
    alleged any prejudice from the delay.  Thus, the district court
    was well within its discretion in considering the motion.  SeeCoughlin v. Tailhook Ass'n Inc., 818 F. Supp. 1366, 1368 (D.
    Nev. 1993) (court will consider motion to dismiss since filing
    one day late did not prejudice plaintiff).
              We find no error in the decision by the EEOC to
    dismiss Kersey's complaint without having informed him
    beforehand of its reliance on the doctrine of constructive
    receipt.  Moreover, since the Notice of Final Interview was
    delivered to the address Kersey provided and was received by an
    individual of suitable age and discretion, Kersey has not
    raised any issue which might rebut the presumption of
    constructive receipt.  Consequently, he suffered no prejudice
    from any failure by the agency to inform him of its reliance on
    the doctrine prior to his final appeal.
              Finally, Kersey has not alleged any facts which show
    that the actions which form the basis of his complaint were
    performed by his supervisors outside of the scope of their
    employment.  Hence, no cause of action exists against them in
    their individual capacities.
              Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.