
USCA1 Opinion

	




          May 6, 1994           [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ___________________          No. 93-1899                                             ARNOLD EMMA, ET AL.,                                Plaintiffs, Appellees,                                          v.                            PAUL B. MURPHY, ETC., ET AL.,                               Defendants, Appellants.                                  __________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                     [Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge]                                             ___________________                                 ___________________                                        Before                                 Breyer, Chief Judge,                                         ___________                            Cyr and Stahl, Circuit Judges.                                           ______________                                 ___________________               Nancy Ankers White, Special  Assistant Attorney General, and               __________________          Peter J. Morin on brief for appellants.          ______________                                  __________________                                __________________                                    Per  Curiam.    Defendants  appeal from  a  default                      ___________            judgment entered after they failed to file an answer or other            appearance within the time specified  in the Federal Rules of            Civil Procedure.  They argue that the district court erred in            denying  their  motion to  remove  the  default, and  in  the            subsequent assessment of damages.                       In the absence of legal error, we review the denial            of  a  motion to  remove a  default  solely for  an  abuse of            discretion.    General  Contracting  & Trading  Co.,  LLC  v.                           __________________________________________            Interpole,  Inc.,   899  F.2d  109,  110   (1st  Cir.  1990).            ________________            Defendants  offer no  persuasive reason  to suggest  that the            district court abused its discretion and we perceive no abuse            in the record.                       As to the assessment  of damages, defendants failed            to timely  file  in  the  district court  any  opposition  to            plaintiffs' two consecutive  motions for assessment,  despite            notice of each motion  and an intervening order by  the court            placing the case on the running trial list "should there be a            factual  dispute  as to  the damages."   Issues  not properly            presented  to the trial court  will not be  addressed for the            first time on appeal.  United States v. Palmer, 956 F.2d 3, 6                                   _____________    ______            (1st Cir. 1992).                           Affirmed.                      ________                                         -2-
