Anolik v. Howland, Esq., (1st Cir. 1997)
Linked as:
Text
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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.
Sponsored links
