In Re: Burgess v.
Case Date: 10/11/1994
Court: United States Court of Appeals
Docket No: 94-1728
|
October 7, 1994 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ____________________ No. 94-1728 IN RE: WILLIAM J. BURGESS, Appellant. ____________________ APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE [Hon. Martin F. Loughlin, Senior U.S. District Judge] __________________________ ____________________ Before Selya, Cyr and Boudin, Circuit Judges. ______________ ____________________ William J. Burgess on brief pro se. __________________ ____________________ ____________________ Per Curiam. The district court did not abuse its ___________ discretion in denying the request to proceed in forma pauperis, see Temple v. Ellerthorpe, 586 F. Supp. 848 (D.R.I. ___ ______ ___________ 1984) (discussing the discretionary nature of this determination), nor did it fail to give an adequate explanation, assuming it were obliged to do so, for its ruling. Affirmed. _________ -3- |