13-4568-cv Turner v. Bond UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 13 th day of February, two thousand fifteen. Present: ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Chief Judge , RALPH K. WINTER, ROBERT D. SACK, Circuit Judges

.

________________________________________________ THOMAS TURNER and MICHELLE TURNER, Plaintiffs-Appellants , v. No. 13-4568-cv THE VILLAGE OF LAKEWOOD, NEW YORK, THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF LAKEWOOD, NEW YORK, GEOFFREY BOND, and SALLY BOOTEY, Defendants-Appellees

.

________________________________________________For Plaintiffs-Appellants: Brian D. Gwitt and Gregory Zini, Damon Morley LLP, Buffalo, NY. For Defendants-Appellees Geoffrey Bond and Sally Bootey: Paul V. Webb, Jr., Erickson Webb Scolton & Hajdu, Lakewood, NY. For Defendants-Appellees the Village of Lakewood, New York and the Board of Trustees of the Village of Lakewood, New York: Terry Rice, Law Offices of Rice & Amon, Suffern, NY.

_______________________________________________ The plaintiffs-appellants, Thomas Turner a nd Michelle Turner, appeal from an order entered on September 27, 2013, by the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (Arcara, J. ). ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF , it is ORDERED , ADJUDGED , and DECREED that the appeal from the order of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED

. Plaintiffs appeal the district court's denial of their motion under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure seeking reconsideration of the district court's prior decision of October 14, 2011, which, inter alia , dismissed the second claim in the plaintiffs' complaint as barred by res judicata. The plaintiffs argued in support of that motion that the district court erred in dismissing their claim. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history of, and issues presented for review by, this appeal. Rule 60(b)(1) "provides for relief from mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Generally this provision has been invoked to remedy the mistake of a party or his representatives ." In re Emergency Beacon Corp. , 666 F.2d 754, 759 (2d Cir. 1981) (emphasis
2added). If a party seeks to challenge a decision of the district court, as the plaintiffs do here, on the grounds that it is mistaken or erroneous, there are other rules under which he or she may proceed, most obviously a direct appeal in the Court of Appeals under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4, or a motion in the district court under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to alter or amend the judgment in question. In this case, the plaintiffs failed to seek a timely review of the October 14, 2011 decision under either under Fed. R. App. P. 4 or Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Because the plaintiffs failed to file a timely appeal of the October 14, 2011 decision, they are procedurally barred from having this Court consider an alleged mistake of the district court in arriving at that decision. We must therefore affirm the judgment of the district court. We have considered all of the Appellants' remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, for the foregoing reas ons, the appeal from the order of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED

. FOR THE COURT: CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK

3