Anolik v. Howland, Esq. ( 1997 )


Menu:
  • USCA1 Opinion











    [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
    ____________________


    No. 96-2268

    JEFFREY S. ANOLIK,

    Plaintiff, Appellant,

    v.

    RICHARD HOWLAND, ESQ.,

    Defendant, Appellee.

    ____________________


    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

    FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

    [Hon. Michael A. Ponsor, U.S. District Judge] ___________________

    ____________________

    Before

    Selya, Circuit Judge, _____________
    Cyr, Senior Circuit Judge, ____________________
    and Lynch, Circuit Judge. _____________

    ____________________

    Jeffrey S. Anolik on brief pro se. _________________
    Charles K. Bergin, Jr. and Robinson Donovan Madden & Barry, P.C. ______________________ _______________________________________
    on brief for appellee.


    ____________________

    May 29, 1997
    ____________________

















    Per Curiam. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties ___________

    and the record on appeal.1 Because, as the district court 1

    concluded, plaintiff cannot reject the settlement and retain

    the settlement proceeds and because the court clearly was

    justified in granting the motion to enforce the settlement

    agreement and dismissing plaintiff's action when plaintiff

    failed to submit an affidavit setting forth his position

    regarding the return of the settlement proceeds, we affirm

    essentially for the reasons stated by the district court in

    its order dated September 17, 1996.2 2

    Affirmed. Loc. R. 27.1. _________
















    ____________________

    1Plaintiff failed to obtain and provide a transcript of 1
    the hearing on the motion to enforce the settlement. Any
    adverse consequences rightly fall on the plaintiff. See ___
    Moore v. Murphy, 47 F.3d 8, 10-11 (1st Cir. 1995). _____ ______

    2We are aware that plaintiff filed an affidavit after the 2
    district court's judgment in this case. It was clearly out-
    of-time as it was not even mailed before its due date of
    September 13. In any event, that affidavit was inadequate
    as, even accepting as true plaintiff's contention of a
    current inability to return the proceeds, it expressed no
    intent or willingness to do so at any time.

    -2-






Document Info

Docket Number: 96-2268

Filed Date: 5/29/1997

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/21/2015