Neiman, et al v. Cntntl Life & Acidnt

1Pursuant 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
April 7, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
No. 02-11192
Summary Calendar
HOWARD NEIMAN; TONYA NEIMAN,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
VERSUS
CONTINENTAL LIFE AND ACCIDENT CO., doing business as
Conseco Medical Insurance Company,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Northern District of Texas, Amarillo
2:00-CV-389
Before DAVIS, WIENER and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
The appellants’ notice of appeal is timely to bring up for
review only one order: the district court’s order of September 30,
2002 denying the appellants’ Rule 60 (b) motion for a new trial

-- 1 of 2 --

2 We consider appellants’ September 25, 2002 motion as one under
Rule 60 (b) because it was filed long after judgment was entered
and after the court denied a Rule 59 motion for a new trial.
2
filed on September 25, 2002.2 In appellants’ September 25, 2002
motion for new trial, appellants raised essentially the same issues
they raised in their Rule 59 motion, which was filed on August 2,
2002 and which the district court denied on August 27, 2002. The
only additional argument the appellants made in this Rule 60(b)
motion was one for general equitable relief which argument was
available to them when they filed their timely Rule 59 motion on
August 2, 2002.
Under these circumstances, the district court did not abuse
its discretion in denying appellant’s Rule 60(b) motion.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --