Court Opinion

ID: 2964870
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:32:25.875548+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:12:04.217383
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                           UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                ____________________
       No. 97-1390
                                 PAUL W. TUNNICLIFF,
                                     Appellant,
                                         v.
                                DENIS MORIARTY, JR.,
                                      Appellee.
                                ____________________
                    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
                    [Hon. Michael A. Ponsor, U.S. District Judge]
                                ____________________
                                       Before
                               Selya, Boudin and Stahl,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                ____________________
            Philip M. Stone on brief for appellant.
            Paul  
                 M.  
                     Cranston and  Cranston  
                                             &  
                                               Cranston,  
                                                          P.C. on brief for
       appellee.
                                ____________________
                                 September 25, 1997
                                ____________________

                      Per Curiam
                               . We have carefully reviewed the parties'
            briefs and the record on appeal. We affirm on grounds that
            appellee Moriarty neither wilfully violated the stay nor caused
            appellant Tunnicliff's injuries.
                      Affirmed. Loc. R. 27.1.
                                
                The request in Appellee's brief for costs is denied
            insofar as it arises under Fed. R. App. P. 38. Appellee may be
            awarded costs under Fed. R. App. P. 39 by complying with the
            procedures stated therein.
                                         -2-