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                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                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