UD DOL v. Total Property
Case Date: 12/08/1994
Court: United States Court of Appeals
Docket No: 94-1719
|
December 8, 1994 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ____________________ No. 94-1719 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. TOTAL PROPERTY SERVICES, INC., ET AL., Defendants, Appellants. ____________________ APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. Douglas P. Woodlock, U.S. District Judge] ___________________ ____________________ Before Cyr, Circuit Judge, _____________ Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge, ____________________ and Stahl, Circuit Judge. _____________ ____________________ James Lawson on brief pro se. ____________ Thomas S. Williamson, Jr., Solicitor of Labor, Monica Gallagher, __________________________ _________________ Associate Solicitor, William J. Stone, Counsel for Appellate ___________________ Litigation, and Joan Brenner, Attorney, U.S. Department of Labor, on _____________ brief for appellee. ____________________ ____________________ Per Curiam. We have reviewed the record and briefs __________ and now affirm the default judgment entered below. The district court implicitly authorized the extension of time for service when it granted the Secretary's motion for appointment of a special process server, vacated its July 6, 1993 judgment of dismissal, and granted the Secretary's motion for entry of a default judgment. We reject appellant's hypertechnical reading of Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(j) and 6(b)(2), and we find no abuse of the court's considerable discretion in extending the time for service. Similarly, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's motion to vacate the default judgment. Affirmed. ________ |