Court Opinion

ID: 2965386
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:39:23.660588+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:10:55.693346
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION--NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]

                 United States Court of Appeals
                     For the First Circuit
                                
                                

No. 97-1923

                    FRANCIS J. DUGGAN, ET AL.,

                      Plaintiffs, Appellees,

                                v.

                    DREAMWORLD, INC., ET AL.,

                      Defendants, Appellees.
                      ____________________
                                
                        ALFRED ALMEDER,
                                
                     Defendant, Appellant.
                                

          APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                                
               FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
                                
          [Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge]
                                

                             Before
                                
                     Torruella, Chief Judge,
               Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges.
                                
                                

     Alfred Almeder on brief pro se.

June 1, 1998

                                
                                
                                               Per Curiam.  Alfred Almeder filed a notice of appeal
    seeking review of the district court's denial of his motion to
    vacate a default and his motion to reconsider that denial.  His
    failure to procure a transcript of the hearing held on June 6,
    1997, at which, it appears, the district court explained its
    reasons for the denial of these two motions, however, precludes
    a reasoned review of that determination.  See Fed. R. App.
    10(b) (outlining the appellant's duty); see also Moore v.
    Murphy, 47 F.3d 8, 10-11 (1st Cir. 1995) (reciting the
    consequences of appellant's failure to procure a necessary
    transcript).
              From aught that appears in the limited record
    provided by appellant, we could find no abuse of discretion in
    the court's rulings.  In particular, Almeder's claim that he
    "never received a request to file a response to any
    allegations" is simply refuted by the record.  The summons,
    itself, which Almeder acknowledges that he received, along with
    a copy of the complaint, stated that he was
              required to serve upon Plaintiff's
              Attorney [] an answer to the complaint
              which is herewith served upon you, within
              twenty days after service of this summons
              upon you, exclusive of the day of service. 
              If you fail to do so, judgment by default
              will be taken against you for the relief
              demanded in the complaint.  You must also
              file your answer with the Clerk of this
              Court within a reasonable period of time
              after service.
    
              Therefore, we affirm the order of the district court
    denying Almeder's motion for reconsideration of the denial of
    his motion to vacate the default.
              Affirmed.  Loc. R. 27.1.