Case Name: Brian J. DASEY, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF STATE POLICE, et al., Defendants, Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-10-28
Citations: 111 F. App'x 620
Docket Number: Nos. 04-1212, 04-1605
Parties: Brian J. DASEY, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF STATE POLICE, et al., Defendants, Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 111
Pages: 620–620

Head Matter:
Brian J. DASEY, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF STATE POLICE, et al., Defendants, Appellees.
Nos. 04-1212, 04-1605.
United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
Oct. 28, 2004.
Brian J. Dasey on brief pro se.
Thomas Reilly, Attorney General, and Matthew O. Berge, Assistant Attorney General, on Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Disposition for appellees.
Before BOUDIN, Chief Judge, TORRUELLA and LYNCH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
In No. 04-1212, appellant Brian Dasey appeals from the district court's denial of his motions under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), for reconsideration, and for sanctions. In No. 04-1605, he appeals from the denial of a second motion for reconsideration and a motion for leave to supplement his filings.
After careful review of the record and the parties' arguments, we affirm the judgments below, concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Dasey's motions. We agree substantially with the reasoning in the district court's Memorandum of Decision dated January 29, 2004, and its March 2, 2004 endorsed order denying reconsideration. In addition, as appellees contend, Dasey may not use a Rule 60(b) motion to relitigate issues already decided by this court, Dasey v. Anderson, 304 F.3d 148, 151 (1st Cir.2002), or to raise issues that might have been, but were not, asserted in prior court proceedings. 12 Moore's Fed. Prac. § 60.48[3][c], at 60-174.1 (3d ed.2003) (confirming that a party's "[f]ailure to take advantage of an opportunity to litigate an issue precludes use of that issue to secure" Rule 60(b)(6) relief). Finally, Dasey's motions failed to establish the alleged "fraud on the court."
The judgments in the above appeals are affirmed. 1st Cir. Loe. R. 27(c).