Pieve Marin v. Combas Sancho

• Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
• Decided: October 5, 1998
• Docket: 98-1322
• Status: Unpublished

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[NOT FOR PUBLICATION--NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT] United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit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