UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 98-11286
Summary Calendar
_____________________
PHILE A. WATSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
TENNECO PACKAGING, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
(3:98-CV-1099-T)
_________________________________________________________________
April 30, 1999
Before POLITZ, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Phile Watson contests the dismissal of his Title VII action
for want of prosecution, challenging a final judgment entered on 19
August 1998 and an order entered on 5 October 1998 denying his
motion for reconsideration.
The action was dismissed by final judgment entered on 19
August 1998. Accordingly, Watson had 30 days to file a notice of
appeal. See FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(1). Instead, he filed a pro se
motion for reconsideration on 28 September 1998, approximately six
weeks after the dismissal. The district court denied the motion on
5 October 1998. Watson filed a notice of appeal on 4 November
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
1998. As noted, he challenges the final judgment and the order
denying his motion.
Because a motion to alter or amend the judgment must be filed
no later than ten days after entry of the judgment, see FED. R. CIV.
P. 59(e), Watson’s motion was untimely for that purpose. Instead,
it is treated as a Rule 60 motion for relief from judgment. E.g.,
Edwards v. City of Houston, 78 F.3d 983, 995 (5th Cir. 1996). A
Rule 60 motion will not extend the time for filing a notice of
appeal, see FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(vi). Needless to say, a
timely notice of appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional, e.g.,
Richardson v. Oldham, 12 F.3d 1373, 1377 (5th Cir. 1994).
Accordingly, we have jurisdiction only as to the denial of the Rule
60 motion. Watson, however, presents no issues relevant to the
ruling on that motion. No authority need be cited for the rule
that his challenge to that order is therefore abandoned.
For the foregoing reasons, the appeal from the final judgment
is DISMISSED and the order denying reconsideration is AFFIRMED.
DISMISSED IN PART AND AFFIRMED IN PART
- 2 -