MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
NANCY F. ATLAS, District Judge.
Energy Drilling Solutions, LLC and Barry Olsen filed this appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas. Appellants failed to comply with the requirements of Bankruptcy Rule 8009(a)(1)(B), which provides that the Appellant shall file a designation of the items to be included in the record on appeal and a statement of the issues presented within 14 days after the appeal is filed. As a result, on December 21, 2016, the Clerk of Court gave written notice to Appellants that if these deficiencies were not cured within 14 days, the appeal could be dismissed without further notice. See Notice of Deficiency [Doc. # 2]. Appellants failed to cure the deficiencies or to request additional time to do so. Therefore, the Court dismissed this appeal by Dismissal Order [Doc. # 3] entered January 6, 2017.
The case is now before the Court on Appellants' Motion to Vacate Dismissal [Doc. # 4], in which Appellants seek reconsideration of the Court's Dismissal Order. The Chapter 7 Trustee — Plaintiff in the underlying adversary proceeding — filed an Objection [Doc. # 6]. Appellants neither filed a reply nor requested an extension of the reply deadline. The Court has reviewed the record, including the proceedings before the Bankruptcy Court in the underlying adversary proceeding. Based on this review and the application of relevant legal authorities, the Court
Appellants do not cite any legal authority for the requested relief. Although the Motion to Vacate Dismissal was filed within 28 days after entry of the Dismissal Order, Appellants neither allege manifest error of law or fact nor present newlydiscovered evidence.
Relief under Rule 60(b)(1) is available where the movant establishes "mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect." FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(1). Relief under this provision is inappropriate when the proffered justification is the "inadvertent mistake" of counsel. See Edward H. Bohlin Co. v. Banning Co., 6 F.3d 350, 356-57 (5th Cir. 1993); Long v. James, ___ F. App'x ___, 2016 WL 4191178, *1 (5th Cir. Aug. 8, 2016); Brittingham v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 543 F. App'x 372, 374 (5th Cir. Oct. 23, 2013). "Gross carelessness, ignorance of the rules, or ignorance of the law" are also insufficient bases for Rule 60(b)(1) relief. Edward H. Bohlin, 6 F.3d at 357. Indeed, granting relief on the sole basis of counsel's carelessness would be an abuse of discretion. See id.
In this case, Appellants' counsel admits that he mis-calendared the applicable deadline, and that he received the Clerk of Court's written notice of the deficiencies. Although Appellants' counsel states that he has now filed the designation of the record on appeal, the designation he filed merely designates the entire record of the underlying adversary proceeding. See Appellants' Designation of Record on Appeal and Statement of Issues Pursuant to Rule 8006 [Doc. # 49] in Adversary Case No. 15-3178.
Moreover, the Court notes that Appellants' failure to cure the deficiencies by the deadline, even when provided written notice and an opportunity to cure that failure, is consistent with their conduct throughout the adversary proceeding. Appellants failed to comply in a timely fashion with their discovery obligations. Appellant Olsen and his son each failed to appear for his properly-noticed deposition, and each failed to notify the Trustee that he would not appear.
Appellants have failed to establish a legal or factual basis for this Court to vacate the Dismissal Order pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1). Appellants have demonstrated, at best, that their attorney was extremely careless. He admits that he mis-calendared the original deadline for designation of the record and filing the statement of issues on appeal. He admits that he received the Clerk of Court's Notice of Deficiency and, inexplicably, failed to avail himself of the opportunity to cure the stated deficiencies. He failed to file a reply contesting any of the statements in the Trustee's Objection to the Motion. As a result, the Court exercises its discretion to deny relief from the Dismissal Order entered January 6, 2017. It is hereby