
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                                [Not for Publication]                            United States Court of Appeals                                For the First Circuit                                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
