Tudisca v. Leary

Opinion

USCA1 Opinion

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________


No. 96-1576



                               VINCENT A. TUDISCA, II,



                                Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                          v.



                          JAMES DENNIS LEARY, ETC., ET AL.,



                                Defendants, Appellees.


____________________



                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS



                     [Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________

                          Boudin and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________



                                 ____________________



            Vincent A. Tudisca, II on brief pro se.
            ______________________

            Scott  Harshbarger,   Attorney  General,  and   Gail  M.  McKenna,
            __________________                              _________________

        Assistant Attorney General, on brief for appellees.


____________________



                                   October 16, 1996

                                 ____________________



Per Curiam.   We affirm the  district court's March
                      __________



            14, 1996 order denying appellant's request to reopen the time



            for  appealing.   Neither the  mistake in  sending notice  to



            appellant's old  address nor the failure of  a clerk's office



            employee fully to inform appellant how to invoke Fed. R. App.



            P. 4(a)(6) and the time limits for  doing so is sufficient to



            excuse  appellant's  late  appeal.   See,  e.g.,  Hensley  v.
                                                 ___   ____   _______



            Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co., 651 F.2d 226, 229-31 (4th Cir. 1981)
            _______________________



            (noting litigant's responsibility to monitor the  progress of



            his action); United States v. Heller, 957 F.2d 26, 29-31 (1st
                         _______________________



            Cir. 1992)  (limiting the  unique  circumstances doctrine  to



            situations  where a  judicial officer  -- and  not a  clerk's



            office  employee --  assures  a party  that  he has  time  to



            appeal).



                      Affirmed.  Loc. R. 27.1.
                      ________


-2-