McNell v. Hugel
Case Date: 02/22/1996
Court: United States Court of Appeals
Docket No: 95-1470
|
February 22, 1996 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ____________________ No. 95-1470 THOMAS R. MCNELL, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. MAX HUGEL, ET AL., Defendants, Appellees. ____________________ APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE [Hon. Joseph A. DiClerico, U.S. District Judge] ___________________ ____________________ Before Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________ Cyr and Boudin, Circuit Judges. ______________ ____________________ Thomas R. McNell on brief pro se. ________________ Gary M. Burt and Wiggin & Nourie on brief for appellees Max _____________ ________________ Hugel, Devine, Millimet, Stahl & Branch, Joseph Millimet, Esquire, and Matthias J. Reynolds, Esquire. William L. Chapman, Cordell A. Johnston, Orr and Reno, Katie A. ___________________ ___________________ _____________ ________ Gummer and McCarter & English on brief for appellee Asbury Park Press. ______ __________________ Wilbur A. Glahn, III, McLane, Graf, Raulerson & Middleton, Andrew _____________________ ___________________________________ ______ L. Sandler, Katharine R. Stollman and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & ___________ _____________________ _______________________________ Flom on brief for appellee Paul L. Perito, Esquire. ____ ____________________ ____________________ Per Curiam. We have reviewed the parties' briefs and ___________ the record on appeal. We affirm the district court's judgment of dismissal, essentially for the reasons stated in its orders of May 16, 1994, July 19, 1994, and March 31, 1995. Affirmed. _________ Appellant's motion for leave to file a supplemental appendix is granted. ________ Appellant's "Rule 60(B)(4)(5) & (6) motion for summary judgment in vacating default judgment obtained in a fraud on the court in Hugel v. McNell litigation" is denied. _____ ______ _______ The motions filed by appellee Asbury Park Press to strike appellant's (1) objection to its motion for summary dismissal and (2) reply brief are denied as moot. _______________ -3- |