[NOT FOR PUBLICATION–NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 99-1157
DENNIS J. SOLOMON, INDIVIDUAL, DENNIS J. SOLOMON,
STOCKHOLDER, DENNIS J. SOLOMON, D/B/A VOLUMETRIC
IMAGING, VOLUMETRIC IMAGING, INC.,
Plaintiffs, Appellants,
v.
RAYTHEON COMPANY, TEXAS INSTRUMENTS, INC.,
Defendants, Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. George A. O’Toole, Jr., U.S. District Judge]
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge,
Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
Dennis J. Solomon on brief pro se.
James F. Kavanaugh, Jr. and Conn, Kavanaugh, Rosenthal,
Peisch & Ford on brief for appellees.
Per Curiam. Upon careful review of the briefs and
the record, we conclude that the district court did not
abuse its discretion in denying the appellant's motion for
reconsideration and motion to amend his complaint to comply
with Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.1. Insofar as the motion for
reconsideration sought relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e),
denial was required because the motion was untimely. See
Vargas v. Gonzalez, 926 F.2d 916, 917 (1st Cir. 1992). The
motion for reconsideration stated no grounds for relief
cognizable under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). See Feinstein v.
Moses, 951 F.2d 16, 19 n. 3 (1st Cir. 1991)(motions which
seek to set aside judgment as legally erroneous are properly
treated under Rule 59(e)). Absent a reopened judgment,
denial of leave to amend was wholly proper. See, e.g.,
Mirpuri v. Act Mfg., Inc., 212 F.3d 624, 628 (1st Cir.
2000)("'[A] district court cannot allow an amended pleading
where a final judgment has been rendered unless that
judgment is first set aside or vacated pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 59 or 60.'")(citation omitted). The remaining
contentions that the appellant argues either have been
waived or are frivolous.
Affirmed. See Loc. Rule 27(c).
-2-