Oyuela v. Seacor Marine Inc, et al, No. 05-30779 (5th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on August 8, 2006.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 3, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 05-30779 REYNALDO OYUELA, Plaintiff-Appellant, VERSUS SEACOR MARINE (NIGERIA), INC., ET AL, Defendants, SEACOR MARINE, INC., SEACOR MARINE (BAHAMAS), INC., SEACOR SMIT, INC., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Reynaldo Oyuela appealed the district court s order denying his motion to reopen, which previously had been administratively closed upon conveniens. the court s Oyuela v. conditional Seacor dismissal Marine for (Nigeria), forum non Inc., No. Civ.A.02-3298, 2005 WL 1400404 (E.D. La. June 8, 2005). * Because Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4. the district court did not make clear whether it intended the dismissal to remain conditional or to become final, we remanded for determination of that issue. Oyuela v. Seacor Marine (Nigeria), Inc., No. 05-30779, 2006 WL 2277642 (5th Cir. Aug. 8, 2006). The district court subsequently converted its conditional dismissal into a final and unconditional dismissal. Oyuela v. Seacor Marine (Nigeria), Inc., No. Civ.A.02-3298, slip op. (E.D. La. Aug. 25, 2006). Having retained jurisdiction over this case during the pendency of our limited remand to the district court, we now review the court s final judgment dismissing Oyuela s claims with prejudice and entering judgment in favor of defendants-appellees. A district court s refusal to reopen an administratively closed case that effectively terminates all litigation between the parties is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Texas, 457 F.3d 472, 476 (5th Cir. 2006); see also Macklin v. City of New Orleans, 293 F.3d 237, 240 (5th Cir. 2002) ( We review the district court's administrative handling of a case . . . for abuse of discretion. ). We find that the district court has not abused its discretion and AFFIRM for the reasons stated by the district court. AFFIRMED. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
