Perkins v. Brown

Opinion

USCA1 Opinion

        December 5, 1995        [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT


____________________


No. 95-1645 



                                  LUTHER C. PERKINS,



                                Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                          v.



                               JESSE BROWN, SECRETARY,

                         U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,



                                 Defendant, Appellee.



                                 ____________________



                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE



                   [Hon. Joseph A. DiClerico, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Selya, Stahl and Lynch,

                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________



                                 ____________________



            Luther C. Perkins on brief pro se.
            _________________

            Paul  M. Gagnon,  United States  Attorney,  and T.  David Plourde,
            _______________                                 _________________

        Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.


____________________


____________________



Per  Curiam.    We  have   carefully  reviewed  the
                      ___________



            parties'  briefs and  the record  on appeal.   We  affirm the



            judgment of  the district  court essentially for  the reasons



            stated  in the order dated May 25,  1995.  We add that, under



            our   system  of   representative  litigation,   clients  are



            ordinarily  held responsible  for the  acts and  omissions of



            their attorneys.   See Thibeault  v. Square D  Co., 960  F.2d
                               ___ _________     _____________



            239, 246 (1st Cir. 1992)  ("[W]hile `[t]he argument that  the



            sins of the attorney should not be visited upon the client is



            a seductive one,  . . .  its siren call  is overborne by  the



            nature of  the adversary system.'" (quoting  Damiani v. Rhode
                                                         _______    _____



            Island Hosp., 704  F.2d 12,  16 (1st Cir.  1983))); see  also
            ____________                                        _________



            Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 633-34 (1962).  Although
            ____    _____________



            we are  not unsympathetic  with appellant's plight,  we agree



            that he is left to his remedies against counsel.  



                      Affirmed.
                      _________


-2-