[NOT FOR PUBLICATION--NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]

                 United States Court of Appeals

                     For the First Circuit











No. 98-1322



                       CARLOS PIEVE MARIN,



                      Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                v.



                  GONZALO COMBAS SANCHO, ET AL.,



                      Defendants, Appellees.







           APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                 FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO



        [Hon. Juan M. Perez-Gimenez, U.S. District Judge]







                              Before



                     Selya, Stahl and Lynch,

                        Circuit Judges.

                                

                                





     Roberto O. Maldonado on brief for appellant.

     Antonio Montalvo-Nazario on brief for appellee, Gonzalo

Combas-Sancho.

     Elizabeth Rice on brief for appellees, Gilberto Hernandez and

Roberto Schmidt-Monge.











September 30, 1998







                                

                                

                                        

            Per Curiam.  Upon careful review of the briefs and

    record, we conclude that the district court acted within its

    discretion in denying plaintiff's motion for post-judgment

    relief.  To the extent that the motion sought the type of

    relief available under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), the motion was

    untimely.  See Vargas v. Gonzalez, 975 F.2d 916, 917 (1st Cir.

    1992).  To the extent that the motion sought the type of relief

    available under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1), we cannot say that

    the district court was required to find that the attorney's

    absence from the status conference and plaintiff's failure to

    "move his case" necessarily were the result of "excusable

    neglect."  See id. at 918.

              Because the notice of appeal was not timely as to the

    underlying judgment of dismissal, we do not consider the

    parties' arguments as to the merits of that judgment.  SeeHoult v. Hoult, 57 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 1995).

              Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.