Case Name: Antonio CONTRERAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SUNCAST CORPORATION, an Illinois Corporation, Thomas Tisbo, John Baunach, Randall Guillotte, and Michael Hamilton, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-01-14
Citations: 24 F. App'x 622
Docket Number: No. 01-2222
Parties: Antonio CONTRERAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SUNCAST CORPORATION, an Illinois Corporation, Thomas Tisbo, John Baunach, Randall Guillotte, and Michael Hamilton, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 24
Pages: 622–622

Head Matter:
Antonio CONTRERAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SUNCAST CORPORATION, an Illinois Corporation, Thomas Tisbo, John Baunach, Randall Guillotte, and Michael Hamilton, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 01-2222.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 20, 2001.
Decided Jan. 14, 2002.
Before FLAUM, Chief Judge, EASTERBROOK, and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.
After an examination of the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
ORDER
Because appellant Contreras did not timely appeal the district court's underlying summary judgment ruling of February 12, 2001, and because this Court has affirmed already the district court's March 15, 2000 grant of summary judgment, 237 F.3d 756 (7th Cir.2001), this appeal is limited to the district court's denial of his Rule 60(b) motion to reconsider.
We review the district court's denial of Contreras's 60(b) motion for abuse of discretion. Castro v. Bd. of Educ., 214 F.3d 932 (7th Cir.2000). Unless no reasonable judge would have denied the motion, no such abuse exists. Id. at 935. We find the court's decision that Contreras failed to show any exceptional circumstances justifying relief under 60(b) reasonable. We AFFIRM.