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[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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-
