Bisegna v. Kitaeff
Case Date: 11/21/1994
Docket No: 93-1833
|
November 21, 1994 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ______________________ No. 93-1833 FRANK A. BISEGNA, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. JEFFREY A. KITAEFF, Defendant, Appellee. ____________________ APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge] ___________________ ____________________ Before Cyr, Boudin and Stahl, Circuit Judges. ______________ ____________________ Frank A. Bisegna on brief pro se. ________________ Jeffrey A. Kitaeff and Jason Rosenberg On Defendant-Appellees' ___________________ ________________ Motion for Summary Disposition for appellee. ____________________ ____________________ Per Curiam. On April 14, 1993, appellant Frank A. __________ Bisegna, a chapter 7 debtor, appealed to the district court from a bankruptcy court order determining the amount of two claims against the estate. On July 16, 1993, the district court dismissed the appeal for failure to file a brief. Appellant appeals the district court's order of dismissal. We have reviewed the record and discovered that appellant did file a timely one-page brief in the district court. Although this brief was accepted for filing by the clerk's office, it was never entered on the docket. It appears that the brief was overlooked because it was attached to copy of the district court's briefing order. Ordinarily, under these circumstances, a remand might be appropriate. However, appellant's one-page brief, filed below, utterly failed to identify any alleged error in the bankruptcy court's ruling on the claims against the estate. Instead, appellant argued that the bankruptcy court erred in denying his repeated motions to withdraw his bankruptcy petition. Based on the bankruptcy court docket entries, it is apparent that appellant had already appealed once to the district court from the denial of his motion to withdraw, and that he did not file a timely appeal from the denial of any subsequently filed motion seeking reconsideration. See ___ Bankruptcy Rule 8002. Under the circumstances, we affirm the judgment of dismissal on the ground that the district court -2- lacked jurisdiction to reach the sole issue raised in appellant's brief. Affirmed. _________ -3- |