Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): under a Rule 60(b)(1) analysis. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are clear that a 60(b)(1) motion must be made within one year of judgment. Here, as the Magistrate Judge noted, the Plaintiffs motion was filed 364 days after judgment, within the appropriate timeframe (Docket No. 36 at 2). Although made within the appropriate time, the Magistrate Judge noted that the Plaintiff affirmatively waived any argument of excusable neglect under Rule 60(b)(1) at the evidentiary hearing (Docket No. 36 at 3). The Magistrate Judge further noted that Plaintiffs reliance on her former attorney Mr. Watkins’ illness and resulting error or general negligence fails to constitute excusable neglect as intended by Rule 60(b)(1) (Docket No. 36 at 9). See Box 111 Firetower Rd., 920 F.2d at 792 (<HOLDING>) (citations omitted); Ake v. Mini Vacations, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding attorneys failure to object does not warrant rule 60b relief (B) holding negligence on the part of the attorney does not qualify for such relief (C) holding that an attorneys negligence alone does not qualify for such relief (D) holding that attorneys are not debt relief agencies (E) holding prayer for general relief does not support award of attorneys fees
Output (English): holding attorneys failure to object does not warrant rule 60b relief