Pratt v. Philbrook ( 1998 )

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                                [Not for Publication]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