
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                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                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-
