Lininger v. Piper

Opinion

USCA1 Opinion

November 25, 1994
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

No. 94-1639 

                                   EDWARD LININGER,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                               ALEXANDER R. PIPER, III,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.

____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                 [Hon. Frank H. Freedman, Chief U.S. District Judge]
                                          _________________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                 Selya, Circuit Judge,
                                        _____________
                           Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                     ____________________
                              and Boudin, Circuit Judge.
                                          _____________

                                 ____________________

            Edward Lininger on brief pro se.
            _______________
            John A.  Agostini and  Cain, Hibbard, Myers  & Cook  on brief  for
            _________________      ____________________________
        appellee.

____________________

____________________



Per Curiam.  Plaintiff's  appeal is meritless.  The
                      __________

            statutes plaintiff challenges,  Mass. G. L. ch. 187,     1-3,

            are  not unconstitutional  and  do not  deprive plaintiff  of

            property.    By  preventing  plaintiff  from  acquiring  from

            defendant an easement by  prescription, the statutes have not

            taken  from plaintiff  anything  he has  ever  owned or  been

            entitled to.

                      Because this  appeal is  frivolous, and in  view of

            plaintiff's repeated,  baseless litigation, we  impose double

            costs  and $  200 in attorneys'  fees.   Fed. R.  App. P. 38.

                      Affirmed.
                      ________

-2-