14-1629 Corines v. Am. Physicians Ins. Trust

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION ASUMMARY ORDER@). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 2 held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 3 New York, on the 14th day of September, two thousand fifteen. 4 5 PRESENT: 6 GERARD E. LYNCH, 7 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, Jr., 8 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 9 Circuit Judges. 10 _____________________________________ 11 12 PETER J. CORINES, 13 14 Plaintiff-Appellant, 15 16 v. 14-1629 17 18 AMERICAN PHYSICIANS INSURANCE 19 TRUST, USI ADMINISTRATORS, INC. 20 HARTFORD LIFE INSURANCE CO., and 21 CONTINENTAL CASULATY CO. d/b/a C.N.A. 22 INSURANCE CO., 23 24 Defendants-Appellees. 25 _____________________________________ 26 27 FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Peter J. Corines, pro se, Eastchester, New York. 28 29 FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: No appearance. 30 1 Appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New

2 York (Preska, C.J.).

3 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND

4 DECREED that the order of the district court is AFFIRMED.

5 Peter J. Corines, pro se, appeals from the district court’s denial of his request for an

6 extension of time to file a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). A district

7 court is not empowered to extend the time to file a Rule 59(e) motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(2)

8 (providing that “[a] court must not extend the time to act under” Rule 59 (e)); see also Lichtenberg

9 v. Besicorp Grp. Inc.,

, 404 (2d Cir. 2000) (explaining that “any request . . . for an

10 extension of the time to move under . . . Rule [59(e)] would have been a request that, given the

11 prohibition in Civil Rule 6(b), could not properly be made”). We therefore perceive no basis to

12 disturb the district court’s decision.

13 Accordingly, we AFFIRM. 14 FOR THE COURT: 15 Catherine O=Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

2