McNell v. Hugel

Opinion

USCA1 Opinion

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                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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-