Oyuela v. Seacor Marine (Nigeria), Inc.

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 3, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-30779
REYNALDO OYUELA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
SEACOR MARINE (NIGERIA), INC., ET AL,
Defendants,
SEACOR MARINE, INC., SEACOR MARINE (BAHAMAS), INC.,
SEACOR SMIT, INC.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Reynaldo Oyuela appealed the district court’s order denying
his motion to reopen, which previously had been administratively
closed upon the court’s conditional dismissal for forum non
conveniens. Oyuela v. Seacor Marine (Nigeria), Inc., No.
Civ.A.02-3298, 2005 WL 1400404 (E.D. La. June 8, 2005). Because
*
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R.
47.5.4.
the district court did not make clear whether it intended the
dismissal to remain conditional or to become final, we remanded for
determination of that issue. Oyuela v. Seacor Marine (Nigeria),
Inc., No. 05-30779, 2006 WL 2277642 (5th Cir. Aug. 8, 2006). The
district court subsequently converted its conditional dismissal
into a final and unconditional dismissal. Oyuela v. Seacor Marine
(Nigeria), Inc., No. Civ.A.02-3298, slip op. (E.D. La. Aug. 25,
2006).
Having retained jurisdiction over this case during the
pendency of our limited remand to the district court, we now review
the court’s final judgment dismissing Oyuela’s claims with
prejudice and entering judgment in favor of defendants-appellees.
A district court’s refusal to reopen an administratively
closed case that effectively terminates all litigation between the
parties is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See United States v.
Texas, 457 F.3d 472, 476 (5th Cir. 2006); see also Macklin v. City
of New Orleans, 293 F.3d 237, 240 (5th Cir. 2002) (“We review the
district court's administrative handling of a case . . . for abuse
of discretion.”).
We find that the district court has not abused its discretion
and AFFIRM for the reasons stated by the district court.
AFFIRMED.
2