Mary C. Guinto, Mother of Michael J. Guinto, Daniel T. Guinto v. Philip Morris, Inc.

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION–NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 00-1289
MARY C. GUINTO, MOTHER OF MICHAEL J. GUINTO,
DANIEL T. GUINTO AND JULIE A. GUINTO;
RAYMOND GUINTO, FATHER OF MICHAEL J. GUINTO,
DANIEL T. GUINTO AND JULIE A. GUINTO,
Plaintiffs, Appellants,
v.
PHILIP MORRIS, INC.,
Defendant, Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Selya, Circuit Judge,
Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
and Boudin, Circuit Judge.
Mary C. Guinto and Raymond Guinto on brief pro se.
Brenda R. Sharton, Robert N. Driscoll, Douglas S. Brooks and
Goodwin, Procter & Hoar on brief for appellee.
September 13, 2000

-- 1 of 2 --

Per Curiam. We have reviewed the parties' briefs
and the record on appeal. There was neither error of law
nor abuse of discretion in the district court's order
denying the appellants' motion, filed pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 60(b), and motion to amend.
We deny the appellee's motion for sanctions seeking
an order preventing appellants from further court action
based upon the same underlying facts. Such a request is
more properly addressed to the district court in the event
of any future filing.
Construing appellants' "motion for argumentative
statement" as a request for oral argument, it is denied.
The order of the district court, dated February 3,
2000, is affirmed.

-- 2 of 2 --