Professional Documents
Culture Documents
December 7, 1992
___________________
No. 92-1440
EDWARD D. COWHIG,
Plaintiff Appellant,
v.
CHIEF OF CHAPLAINS, U.S. ARMY, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
__________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Mark L. Wolf, U.S. District Judge]
___________________
___________________
Before
Selya, Cyr and Boudin,
Circuit Judges.
______________
___________________
Edward D. Cowhig on brief pro se.
________________
A. John Pappalardo, United States Attorney, and
___________________
Forde, Assistant U.S. Attorney, on brief for appellees.
_____
Annette
_______
__________________
__________________
Per Curiam.
__________
action
in
the
Massachusetts
circumstances
his
Plaintiff-appellant Edward
District
on
May
position as
U.S.C.
16,
for
1990,
e.g.,
____
District
claiming
a chaplain
1961-68.
in the
U.S. Army
that
of
the
violated the
the
Court
Cowhig filed an
sought reinstatement
that
action Cowhig
on numerous occasions.
See,
___
(1st
1982),
cert. denied,
____________
460 U.S.
1092 (1983).
The
district
res judicata,
collateral
limitations.
The
defendants on July
estoppel, and
district court
2, 1991.
entered
the statute
of
judgment
for
Cowhig v.
______
appeal in
filed a Fed. R.
pending, Cowhig
in the district
court
denied
Cowhig's
motion.
Cowhig
appeals.
We
affirm.
The rule based on which Cowhig sought reconsideration of
the judgment, Rule 60(b), provides as follows:
-2-
motion only
abused
upon a
its discretion
finding that
in
denying the
the
a Rule
district court
motion.
Rodriguez__________
putative
Cowhig in support
the following four
Col. Thomas Kelly
"newly
of his Rule
items:
March
Cowhig's
reviewing
1985
offered
by
of
letters of
Lt.
and
paratroop operations on
and
discovered" evidence
Okinawa in 1961;
letters
of
medical condition
Dr. Roark's
Dr.
George
on Okinawa
1983
(2)
October
Roark
diagnosing
in 1961-62,
testimony on
1991
in part
the same
subject
an
Cowhig's
October 1991
January 1986
None of
letter from
these
of
Dr. John
evidence meet
Day diagnosing
the
Rule
(4)
the same.
60(b)(2)
-3-
in time
for a
Rule
59 motion,
i.e., by
July
1991.
Dr.
Rohde's January 1986 letter and Dr. Roark's March 1985 letter
were
in existence
constitute newly
before
that time
discovered
letter concerning
and
obviously do
evidence.
conditions in
Lt.
Col.
Okinawa in 1961
between
his
January
1962 discharge
and
Day could
have been
obtained, in
Kelly's
sets forth
not
July
at any
1991.
the exercise
of due
presented no
the
rule
in this
circuit,
litigant, as
an empty exercise."
v. Superline Transportation
________________________
Co.,
___
1992).
20 (1st Cir.
The
litigant must,
claim or
defense which,
contained in
Cowhig
Id. at 21.
___
were to
concerning Cowhig's
accept as true
medical
condition in
nothing.
All
will bring
of Cowhig's
all the
assertions
1961-62 that
that would
proffered
are
avail
evidence
is
-4-
irrelevant
to
the res
judicata,
collateral
estoppel, and
P.
-5-