Court Opinion

ID: 2965525
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:41:28.1463+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:51.078766
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION--NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
                 United States Court of Appeals
                     For the First Circuit

No. 98-1322

                       CARLOS PIEVE MARIN,

                      Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                v.

                  GONZALO COMBAS SANCHO, ET AL.,

                      Defendants, Appellees.

           APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                 FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

        [Hon. Juan M. Perez-Gimenez, U.S. District Judge]

                              Before

                     Selya, Stahl and Lynch,
                        Circuit Judges.
                                
                                

     Roberto O. Maldonado on brief for appellant.
     Antonio Montalvo-Nazario on brief for appellee, Gonzalo
Combas-Sancho.
     Elizabeth Rice on brief for appellees, Gilberto Hernandez and
Roberto Schmidt-Monge.

September 30, 1998

                                
                                
                                        
            Per Curiam.  Upon careful review of the briefs and
    record, we conclude that the district court acted within its
    discretion in denying plaintiff's motion for post-judgment
    relief.  To the extent that the motion sought the type of
    relief available under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), the motion was
    untimely.  See Vargas v. Gonzalez, 975 F.2d 916, 917 (1st Cir.
    1992).  To the extent that the motion sought the type of relief
    available under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1), we cannot say that
    the district court was required to find that the attorney's
    absence from the status conference and plaintiff's failure to
    "move his case" necessarily were the result of "excusable
    neglect."  See id. at 918.
              Because the notice of appeal was not timely as to the
    underlying judgment of dismissal, we do not consider the
    parties' arguments as to the merits of that judgment.  SeeHoult v. Hoult, 57 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 1995).
              Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.