USCA1 Opinion

February 24, 1995

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 94-1696
ANGEL LUIS FIGUEROA,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
SPECIAL AGENT JAMES J. DOYLE, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Edward F. Harrington, U.S. District Judge]
___________________
____________________
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge,
___________
Boudin and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
______________
____________________
Angel Figueroa on brief pro se.
______________

Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, and Susan M. Poswisti

________________
_________________
Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellees.
____________________
____________________

Per Curiam.
___________
so

On October 12, 1993, we remanded this case

that plaintiff

amend

his complaint

(as he

F.3d

Plaintiff
action

218

a claim

(1st Cir.

1993)
to

attempt to

under Bivens
______

U.S. 388 (1971).

thereafter failed

(table)

do so,

and

See
___

v. Six
___

Figueroa v.
________

(per

curiam).

took no

other

apart from submitting a change of address form to the

district court.
to

requested) might

to state

Unknown Named Agents, 403

____________________
DEA,
___

had

dismiss

On April 21, 1994, defendants filed a motion

under

Fed. R.

Civ.

P.

41(b)

for failure

to

prosecute.
court

Plaintiff filed no opposition,

granted

appealed from

the

motion on

this ruling,

May

19,

and the district

1994.

Having

plaintiff makes no

now

reference to

the Rule 41(b) dismissal in his principal brief.

Only in his

reply brief does he attempt an explanation, alleging that (1)

he

had

assumed

the

necessary further
copy

of

the

district

court

proceedings, and

defendants'

would

initiate

(2) he never

motion to

dismiss

the

received a

(despite

the

appearance therein of a proper certificate of service).

We affirm.
measure he has
failing

to

that

the

on appeal,

Rule

Cir. 1992) ("It is

legal

argument

41(b)

dismissal

plaintiff has waived

e.g., Rivera-Muriente v.
____ _______________

354 (1st

seek reconsideration below (a

employed earlier in this litigation),

challenge

principal brief
See,
___

By failing to

made

for

the

first

in

his

the issue.

Agosto-Alicea, 959
_____________
well settled in

and by

F.2d 349,

this court ...

time

in

an

appellant's

reply

addressed.").

brief

comes too

late

and

need not

We add that invocation of the waiver rule here

would work no injustice, inasmuch as plaintiff's

substantive

claim (upon which he has elaborated in his appellate

appears

entirely meritless.

the sufficiency

underlying

conviction--a

rejected in the past.

7

(1st

Cir. 1994)

papers)

By way of the instant attack on

the forfeiture of his assets, plaintiff is seeking

challenge

be

of

the

simply to

evidence supporting

challenge

we

have

his

decisively

See Figueroa v. United States, 19 F.3d

___ ________
_____________
(table) (per

curiam); United States v.

______________

Figueroa, 976 F.2d 1446 (1st Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 113 S.
________
____________
Ct. 1346 (1993).
Affirmed.
_________

-3-