Eno v. HUD

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit·Decided February 3, 1994·No. 93-1834·Published

Opinion

USCA1 Opinion


February 3, 1994 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________

No. 93-1834

RICHARD T. ENO,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT,

Defendant, Appellee.

____________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[Hon. Joseph L. Tauro, U.S. District Judge]
___________________

____________________

Before

Breyer, Chief Judge,
___________
Torruella and Selya, Circuit Judges.
______________

____________________

Richard T. Eno on brief pro se.
______________
A. John Pappalardo, United States Attorney, and Suzanne E.
____________________ ___________
Durrell, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.
_______

____________________

____________________

Per Curiam. We have reviewed the briefs and the
___________

record on appeal. The district court order of May 6, 1993,

which denied appellant's motion to reinstate his lawsuit and

to consider appellant's motion for summary judgment filed in

October 1990, was neither erroneous nor an abuse of

discretion.

Affirmed.
_________

-2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Eno v. HUD, (1st Cir. 1994).

Eno v. HUD (Eno v. HUD) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.