Tudisca v. Leary
Case Date: 10/16/1996
Court: United States Court of Appeals
Docket No: 96-1576
|
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ____________________ No. 96-1576 VINCENT A. TUDISCA, II, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. JAMES DENNIS LEARY, ETC., ET AL., Defendants, Appellees. ____________________ APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge] ___________________ ____________________ Before Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________ Boudin and Lynch, Circuit Judges. ______________ ____________________ Vincent A. Tudisca, II on brief pro se. ______________________ Scott Harshbarger, Attorney General, and Gail M. McKenna, __________________ _________________ Assistant Attorney General, on brief for appellees. ____________________ October 16, 1996 ____________________ Per Curiam. We affirm the district court's March __________ 14, 1996 order denying appellant's request to reopen the time for appealing. Neither the mistake in sending notice to appellant's old address nor the failure of a clerk's office employee fully to inform appellant how to invoke Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6) and the time limits for doing so is sufficient to excuse appellant's late appeal. See, e.g., Hensley v. ___ ____ _______ Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co., 651 F.2d 226, 229-31 (4th Cir. 1981) _______________________ (noting litigant's responsibility to monitor the progress of his action); United States v. Heller, 957 F.2d 26, 29-31 (1st _______________________ Cir. 1992) (limiting the unique circumstances doctrine to situations where a judicial officer -- and not a clerk's office employee -- assures a party that he has time to appeal). Affirmed. Loc. R. 27.1. ________ -2- |