Opinion
13-P-1793
11-07-2014
LYNN VALLIERE v. RENEE DURNING.
NOTICE: Decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to its rule 1:28 are primarily addressed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, rule 1:28 decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 1:28, issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
The plaintiff, Lynn Valliere, appeals from an order of the single justice denying her motions to file a late notice of appeal. "[W]e review the action of the single justice for errors of law and, if none appear, for abuse of discretion." Troy Indus., Inc. v. Samson Mfg. Corp., 76 Mass. App. Ct. 575, 581 (2010). Here, the plaintiff has made no showing, and indeed has not even argued, that the single justice committed an error of law or abused his discretion in denying the motions. An issue not briefed need not be considered by the court. See Mass.R.A.P. 16(a)(4), as amended, 367 Mass. 921 (1975); Kellogg v. Board of Registration in Med., 461 Mass. 1001, 1003 (2011). See also Davis v. Tabachnick, 425 Mass. 1010, 1010 (1997) ("Although the plaintiffs have been acting pro se, they are held to the same standards as litigants who are represented by counsel").
The plaintiff did mention in her brief that she was "unable to appeal . . . due to [her] medical condition." This assertion is not supported by any record citations. The plaintiff also did not include in her record appendix information relevant to what evidence was presented to the single justice or what arguments were made. Shawmut Community Bank, N.A. v. Zagami, 411 Mass. 807, 810-812 & nn. 4, 5 (1992) (inadequacy of appendix sufficiently egregious that court refused to consider issues raised); Chokel v. Genzyme Corp., 449 Mass. 272, 279 (2007).
The plaintiff's brief focuses on numerous allegations of error at trial as well as alleged professional misconduct by her own counsel. These allegations are not relevant to the issue before this court.
--------
Order of single justice affirmed.
By the Court (Kafker, Trainor & Milkey, JJ.),
Clerk Entered: November 7, 2014.