* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** Honorable William F. Downes, District Judge, UnitedStates District Court for the District of Wyoming, sitting by designation

.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 1/10/97 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

STEPHEN L. STRINGFELLOW,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. JESSE BROWN, Secretary of the Veterans Administration,

Defendant-Appellee. No. 95-7145 (D.C. No. CV-95-123-S) (E.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before EBEL and HENRY, Circuit Judges, and DOWNES, ** District Judge.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a dec ision on the briefs without oral2 -2- argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. Th e case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Plaintiff-appellant Stephen L. Stringfellow appeals the district court’s entry of summary judgment based on his failure to respondto defendant’s motion as required by a local rule. Because the district cou rt did not abuse its discretion in finding that the proffered reasons for not respondi ng were not “excusable neglect,” we affirm. In March 1995, plaintiff filed this action against his former employer, alleging employment discrimination and retaliation. After answering, defendant filed a motion to dismiss and a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff did not respond to these motions within ten days, as requir ed by Local Rule 14(a). Nine days after the responses were due, the district cou rt entered an order granting summary judgment based on plaintiff’s failure to re spond. Ten days later, plaintiff filed a motion to vacate and reconsider t he order, with a brief and a copy of his proposed response to the summary judgment mo tion. The motion stated that plaintiff’s response and brief were not filed when due “because of the voluminous evidentiary materials that had to be exa mined to prepare the Response and Brief and because of the responsibilities of Pl aintiff’s counsel in other cases which had similar deadlines and required similar attention and briefs.” Appellant’s App. at 123. The district court deniedthe motion, finding that “the3 -3- proffered reasons are wholly inadequate to establis h the necessary excusable neglect.” Id. at 367. We review the district court's denial of plaintiff’ s motion to reconsider for an abuse of discretion. Thompson v. City of Lawre nce , 58 F.3d 1511, 1514-15 (10th Cir. 1995). “An abuse of discretion is defin ed in this circuit as a judicial action which is arbitrary, capricious, or whimsical .” Pelican Prod. Corp. v. Marino , 893 F.2d 1143, 1146 (10th Cir. 1990). We review the entire record to ascertain if the trial court failed to recognize so me compelling reason for granting relief. Id. Under Rule 6(b), the court may, in its discretion, accept late filings because the failure to file on time was excusable neglect. Lujan v. National Wildlife Fed’n , 497 U.S. 871, 896-97 (1990); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b) . The LujanCourt noted that the demonstration of excusable neglect is the greatest “substantive obstacle” under Rule 6(b). 497 U.S. at 897. The Supreme Court has recently elaborated on the me aning of “excusable neglect,” in the context of the courts’ discretiona ry powers to excuse certain failures: “Congress plainly contemplated that the courts would be permitted , where appropriate, to accept late filings caused byinadvertence, mistake, or carelessness, as well as by intervening circumstanc es beyond the party's control.” Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P artnership , 507 U.S. 380, 3884 -4- (1993)(emphasis supplied). To determine whether th e neglect is “excusable,” the court must take account of all relevant circumstanc es surrounding the party's omission, including “the danger of prejudice to the [non-moving party], the length of the delay and its potential impact on judicial p roceedings, the reason for the delay, including whether it was within the reasonab le control of the movant, and whether the movant acted in good faith.” Id. at 395. Control over the circumstances of the delay is “the most important s ingle . . . factor . . . in determining whether neglect is excusable.” City of Chanute v. Williams Nat. Gas
Co. , 31 F.3d 1041, 1046 (10th Cir. 1994)(citations omi tted). This court has “recognize[d] that a finding of excu sable neglect under Rule 6(b)(2) requires both a demonstration of good faith by [movant] and it must also appear that there was a reasonable basis for n ot complying with the specified period.” Four Seasons Secs. Laws Litig. v. Bank of Am. , 493 F.2d 1288, 1290 (10th Cir. 1974)(citing 4 Charles A. Wright & Arthu r E. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1165 (1969)). Here, however, plaintiff has not even alleged that his failure to respond was due to inadvertence, mis take, or carelessness. Cf. Miller v. Dep’t of the Treasury , 934 F.2d 1161, 1162 (10th Cir. 1991)(finding excusable neglect when plaintiff did not receive mo tion due to incarceration); Hancock v. City of Oklahoma City , 857 F.2d 1394, 1396 (10th Cir. 1988)(finding5 -5- excusable neglect when attorney did not spot summary judgment motion in large stack of trial motions). Instead, it appears that plaintiff’s attorney recei ved the motion and knew of the need to respond, but simply disregarded the dea dline based on the volume of evidence to be reviewed and his workload. No explanation or “reasonable basis” is given why an extension was not requested. Becau se plaintiff’s failure to respond does not seem to be due to “neglect,” there was no error in denying his motion for reconsideration. See, e.g. , Thompson , 58 F.3d at 1515 (noting that plaintiffs failed to allege or prove excusable negl ect by arguing that response actually had been mailed); Sil-Flo, Inc. v. SFHC, I nc. , 917 F.2d 1507, 1519 (10th Cir. 1990)(characterizing failure to file timely co unterclaim as tactical, and thus not due to oversight, inadvertence, or excusable ne glect); Clark v. H.R. Textron,
Inc. , No. 94-55212, 1995 WL 536103, at **2 (9th Cir. Se pt. 8, 1995)(unpublished table decison)(stating that counsel’s “deliberate i naction” in failing to even move for an extension of time under Rule 6(b) “cannot, b y definition, be neglectful”). Even if plaintiff’s failure to respond was due to n eglect, the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that th e neglect was not excusable. In Hanson v. City of Oklahoma City , No. 94-6089, 1994 WL 551336, at **1 (10th Cir. Oct. 11, 1994)(unpublished table decision), co unsel filed a timely request for a five-day extension of time pursuant to Rule 6(b)( 1) and Local Rule 14(H), citing6 -6- the “nature of the issues presented.” The Tenth Ci rcuit affirmed the district court’s exercise of discretion in denying the motio n stating “[w]hen counsel fails to give a reason for a request, a trial court will ordinarily not abuse its discretion in denying the request.” Id. at **2. The Court further found “counsel’s vague references to ‘previously scheduled legal commitments’ insufficient to establish excusable neglect under Rule 6(b)(2).” Id. at **4. Similarly here, where counsel did not even move for an extension of time, his bus y workload does not establish excusable neglect under Rule 6(b)(2). See McLaughlin v. City of LaGrange , 662 F.2d 1385, 1387 (11th Cir. 1981)(stating “[t]he fac t that counsel has a busy practice does not establish ‘excusable neglect’ und er Rule 6(b)(2)”). “If there was ‘excusable’ neglect here, we have difficulty im agining a case of inexcusable neglect.” Prizevoits v. Indiana Bell Tel. Co. , 76 F.3d 132, 134 (7th Cir. 1996)(finding no excusable neglect where counsel’s “unaccountable lapse” caused expiration of time for filing notice of appeal). The judgment of the United States District Court fo r the Eastern District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

Robert H. Henry Circuit Judge