This personal injury action arises out of a highway accident that occurred in Texas. The district court determined that it lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant, a Texas firm, and dismissed the action on that basis. The court thereafter denied the plaintiffs motion for reconsideration.

We have scoured the record and carefully considered the parties’ briefs and arguments. We conclude that this appeal is timely only as to the district court’s denial of the plaintiffs motion for reconsideration. 1 See Rodriguez-Antuna v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 871 F.2d 1, 2 (1st Cir. 1989). Given the exiguous showing made by the plaintiff, that denial plainly was within the district court’s discretion. See id. at 3 (“Plaintiffs, if they had a case to make, should have made it in a timely fashion.”).

We add, moreover, that even if we were to consider the underlying question of personal jurisdiction, we would uphold the district court’s order of dismissal. The plaintiffs reliance on the unsupported allegations in her complaint and memorandum in opposition to the motion to dismiss is manifestly insufficient to make out a prima facie case for in personam jurisdiction. See, e.g., Barrett v. Lombardi, 239 F.3d 23, 26-27 (1st Cir. 2001); Boit v. Gar-Tec Prods., Inc., 967 F.2d 671, 675 (1st Cir. 1992); see also Donatelli v. Nat'l Hockey League, 893 F.2d 459, 463 (1st Cir. 1990) (explaining that a finding of general personal jurisdiction requires a showing of “continuous and systematic contacts” with the forum state).

We need go no further. This appeal is groundless and, therefore, the judgment below may be summarily affirmed. See 1st Cir. R. 27(c).

Affirmed.