Court Opinion

ID: 2962384
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 20:57:06.720612+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:02:03.926909
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

        February 3, 1994        [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 93-1834                                    RICHARD T. ENO,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.              UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT,                                 Defendant, Appellee.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                     [Hon. Joseph L. Tauro, U.S. District Judge]                                            ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                 Breyer, Chief Judge,                                         ___________                         Torruella and Selya, Circuit Judges.                                              ______________                                 ____________________            Richard T. Eno on brief pro se.            ______________            A.  John  Pappalardo,  United  States  Attorney,  and  Suzanne  E.            ____________________                                   ___________        Durrell, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.        _______                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                      Per  Curiam.  We  have reviewed the  briefs and the                      ___________            record  on appeal.  The district court  order of May 6, 1993,            which  denied appellant's motion to reinstate his lawsuit and            to  consider appellant's motion for summary judgment filed in            October  1990,  was   neither  erroneous  nor  an   abuse  of            discretion.                 Affirmed.                 _________                                         -2-