Haken v. The Money Store ( 1997 )

USCA1 Opinion

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________





        No. 96-2147



                           LUDWIG HAKEN, I AND NAOMI HAKEN,



                                     Appellants,



                                          v.



                               THE MONEY STORE, 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



                                 Selya, Circuit Judge,
_____________

                              Cyr, Senior Circuit Judge,
____________________

                              and Lynch, Circuit Judge.
_____________



                                 ____________________



            Ludwig L. Haken, I on brief pro se.
__________________

            Mark G. May and Thornton & Thornton, P.A. on brief for appellee.
___________     _________________________



                                 ____________________



                                     May 7, 1997

                                 ____________________







































                      Per Curiam.  The  district court did not  abuse its
__________



            discretion   in  dismissing  debtor's   appeal  for  lack  of



            prosecution when  debtor failed to  file a brief  within Rule



            8009's 15-day limit.   The July 25, 1996 notice  of docketing



            and briefing  deadline, which  clearly referenced Rule  8009,



            was  not confusing  and  should not  have  misled debtor  had



            debtor read Rule  8009.  Debtor's other arguments are outside



            the scope of the  present appeal from the August 14, 1996 and



            September 19, 1996 orders dismissing for lack of prosecution,



            but are, in any event, meritless.



                      Affirmed.
________































































                                         -2-