Providence County Superior Court (PC 14-436) Associate
Justice Maureen B. Keough
Plaintiff: Lisa A. Adelman, Esq.
Defendant: Aly T. Diene, Pro Se
Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Flaherty, Robinson, and Indeglia,
defendant, Aly Diene, appeals from an order denying his
"Motion for Postjudgment Relief Petition for
Perjury." In a previous decision, this Court addressed
Mr. Diene's appeal from the entry of final judgment in
favor of the plaintiff, OSJ of Providence, LLC (OSJ); and we
unanimously affirmed that judgment. OSJ of Providence,
LLC v. Diene, 154 A.3d 460, 461-62 (R.I. 2017). This
case came before the Supreme Court for oral argument pursuant
to an order directing the parties to show cause why the
issues raised in this appeal should not be summarily decided.
After examining the written and oral submissions of the
parties and after a thorough review of the record, we are of
the opinion that this appeal may be resolved without further
briefing or argument.
facts of the underlying dispute are detailed in our previous
decision, we shall relate here only the facts that are
directly relevant to the present appeal. On May 10, 2017,
after the Superior Court had entered final judgment in favor
of OSJ and after this Court had issued its opinion affirming
that judgment, Mr. Diene filed a "Motion for
Postjudgment Relief Petition for Perjury" in the
Superior Court, alleging that OSJ, through its attorney, had
made false statements and had introduced misleading documents
at the Superior Court hearing that was conducted to determine
the amount of damages owed to OSJ. OSJ objected to that motion,
contending that Mr. Diene had failed to present sufficient
evidence to warrant postjudgment relief under Rule 60 of the
Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure. On April 13, 2018,
the hearing justice heard argument on Mr. Diene's motion,
but she reserved issuing a decision at that time so as to
give the parties the opportunity to present further
arguments. On April 17, 2018, Mr. Diene filed another
"Motion for Postjudgment Relief Petition for
Perjury," making the same contentions as he had in his
first motion. On April 24, 2018, after hearing arguments as
to both the motion filed in May of 2017 and the motion filed
in April of 2018, the hearing justice denied both motions. An
order to that effect entered, and Mr. Diene appealed.
appeal, Mr. Diene contends: (1) that the hearing justice
erred by denying his motion for postjudgment relief based on
a clerical error; (2) that the hearing justice erred by
denying his motion for postjudgment relief based on new
evidence; and (3) that he was "denied a fair trial and
his civil right to a fair hearing." In his written
submission to this Court, Mr. Diene does not identify the
clerical error or new evidence that he alleges warranted a
grant of postjudgment relief, nor does he explain how he was
denied a fair hearing. As we have often said, we "deem
an issue waived 'when a party [s]imply stat[es] an issue
for appellate review, without a meaningful discussion thereof
* * *.'" A. Salvati Masonry Inc. v.
Andreozzi, 151 A.3d 745, 750 (R.I. 2017) (quoting In
re Jake G., 126 A.3d 450, 458 (R.I. 2015)). Such is the
case "[e]ven when a party has properly preserved its
alleged error of law in the lower court * * *."
McGarry v. Pielech, 108 A.3d 998, 1005 (R.I. 2015);
see Terzian v. Lombardi, 180 A.3d 555, 557 (R.I.
2018). Mr. Diene's submission to this Court entitled
"Notice of Appeal" contains no cognizable legal
argument. Therefore, we hold that each of Mr. Diene's
arguments on appeal are waived.
conclude by observing that Mr. Diene has clearly had his day
in court. In our considered judgment, "[i]t is time for
this litigation to end." Arena v. City of
Providence, 919 A.2d 379, 396 (R.I. 2007); see Gunn
v. Union Railroad Co., 27 R.I. 320, 337, 62 A. 118, 125
reasons set forth in this order, we affirm the order of the
Superior Court. The record may be returned to that tribunal.
 The referenced Superior Court hearing
was held in August of 2015 before the entry of final judgment
in favor of OSJ. OSJ of Providence, LLC v. Diene,
154 A.3d 460, 463 (R.I. 2017).
 On April 20, 2018, an order entered
denying Mr. Diene's first "Motion for Postjudgment
Relief Petition for Perjury." At the hearing on April
24, 2018, the hearing justice noted that she had signed that
order in error as she remembered that she had indicated to
the parties that she would reserve her decision until a later
 The day before oral argument, Mr.
Diene submitted a document to this Court entitled
"Motion to Consider Perjury Based on Newly Discovered
Evidence." Even prescinding from the fact that this most
recent filing is not authorized by the Supreme Court Rules of
Appellate Procedure, the arguments raised therein were not
presented to the Superior Court and, therefore, are not
properly before ...