Court Opinion

ID: 2965132
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:35:51.820493+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:02:03.629530
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [Not for Publication]
                            United States Court of Appeals
                                For the First Circuit
                                 ____________________

        No. 97-1932

                                    MARY V. PRATT,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                                 KELLEY C. PHILBROOK,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                    [Hon. Michael A. Ponsor, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                 Stahl, Circuit Judge.
                                        _____________
                           Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                     ____________________
                              and Lynch, Circuit Judge.
                                         _____________

                                 ____________________

            William  F. Scannell,  Jr. with  whom Edward  W. McIntyre  was  on
            __________________________            ___________________
        brief for appellant.
            Paul G. Pino with whom  Clark, Balboni & Gildea  was on brief  for
            ____________            _______________________
        appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                  February 11, 1998
                                 ____________________

                      Per  curiam.   In this  appeal, plaintiff-appellant
                      Per  curiam.
                      ___________

            Mary V. Pratt  asserts that the district  court acted outside

            its discretion in concluding that her failure to comply  with

            the terms of its sixty-day  Settlement Order of Dismissal was

            not  a result of "excusable neglect."   See generally Pioneer
                                                    ___ _________ _______

            Inv.  Servs.  Co. v.  Brunswick  Assocs. Ltd.,  507  U.S. 380
            _________________     _______________________

            (1993)  (explaining  the  concept  of  "excusable  neglect").

            Having carefully  reviewed the  court's determinations  -- as

            set forth  in its  comprehensive opinion --  in the  light of

            plaintiff's appellate  arguments,  we perceive  no  abuse  of

            discretion.   The court's factual findings are well supported

            and its mixed fact/law determinations are unassailable.

                           Affirmed.  Costs to appellee.
                           Affirmed.  Costs to appellee.
                           _________

                                         -2-
                                          2