# Galley v. Brown & Root Intl

> Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · July 20, 1998 · 149 F.3d 1179

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/15209

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- **Decided:** July 20, 1998
- **Citations:** 149 F.3d 1179
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/15209

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 97-31163
Summary Calendar
_____________________

LIONEL GALLEY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

BROWN & ROOT INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
(90-CV-2791)
_________________________________________________________________
July 14, 1998
Before SMITH, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Lionel Galley appeals the 23 October 1997 denial of his 13

August 1997 FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(6) motion for relief from the

district court’s 12 January 1993 order dismissing his Jones Act

claim for want of prosecution. Galley contends that he is entitled

to such relief because the district court misled him into believing

that an order of dismissal had not been entered, and that the

*
Pursuant 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
district court led him to believe that there was no time limit on

prosecuting his claim, once his initial complaint had been filed.

The record reveals that the district court did not abuse its

discretion in denying the Rule 60(b)(6) motion, see Lancaster v.

Presley, 35 F.3d 229, 231 (5th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S.

1026 (1995), in that Galley falls far short of demonstrating the

existence of “extraordinary circumstances” warranting such

extraordinary relief. See Government Fin. Servs. One Ltd.

Partnership v. Peyton Place, Inc., 62 F.3d 767, 773-74 (5th Cir.

1995); Hester Int’l Corp. v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, 879 F.2d

170, 174 (5th Cir. 1989).

AFFIRMED

- 2 -

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/15209. Public record. Not legal advice.