Opinion
11-P-711
03-07-2012
PAUL CAMPBELL v. PAUL HALLORAN & others.
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, Paul Campbell, appeals from an order of the Superior Court dismissing his appeal for failure to prosecute the appeal in accordance with the Massachusetts Rules of Appellate Procedure. Although the judge did not make an explicit finding of 'inexcusable neglect' under Mass.R.A.P. 10(c), as amended, 417 Mass. 1602 (1994), we may infer that the judge made such a finding in light of his allowance of the defendants' detailed motion to dismiss. The judge did not abuse his discretion.
With regard to the plaintiff's claim that the judge erred by not permitting him to docket late, we need not reach that issue, but if we were to consider it, we would conclude that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of his appeal. See Tisei v. Building Inspector of Marlborough, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 377, 379 (1975).
Order dismissing appeal affirmed.
By the Court (Cypher, Cohen & Wolohojian, JJ.),