Filed: Oct. 15, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS U.S. _ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT OCT 15, 2010 No. 10-12437 JOHN LEY Non-Argument Calendar CLERK _ D.C. Docket No. 1:05-cv-01930-GET PHILLIP R. NEELY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CITY OF RIVERDALE, IRIS JESSIE, Individually and in her official capacity as city manager, THETUS A. KNOX, individually and in her official capacity as city police chief, T. MICHAEL MARTIN, individually and in his official cap
Summary: [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS U.S. _ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT OCT 15, 2010 No. 10-12437 JOHN LEY Non-Argument Calendar CLERK _ D.C. Docket No. 1:05-cv-01930-GET PHILLIP R. NEELY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CITY OF RIVERDALE, IRIS JESSIE, Individually and in her official capacity as city manager, THETUS A. KNOX, individually and in her official capacity as city police chief, T. MICHAEL MARTIN, individually and in his official capa..
More
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
U.S.
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
OCT 15, 2010
No. 10-12437 JOHN LEY
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:05-cv-01930-GET
PHILLIP R. NEELY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
CITY OF RIVERDALE,
IRIS JESSIE,
Individually and in her official capacity as city manager,
THETUS A. KNOX,
individually and in her official capacity as city police chief,
T. MICHAEL MARTIN,
individually and in his official capacity as city hearing officer,
WANDA WALLACE,
individually and in her official capacity as city councilwoman,
Defendants - Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(October 15, 2010)
Before MARCUS, PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Phillip Neely appeals the denial of his motion to vacate an order that
imposed sanctions against his attorney, Michael King. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). We
affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Neely’s motion.
Neely argues that he and King were denied due process, but King was given notice
of the charge of misconduct and defended that misconduct in his objection to a
recommendation to grant the motion to impose sanctions. See Attwood v.
Singletary,
105 F.3d 610, 613 (11th Cir. 1997). Neely also argues that the
sanctions are excessive, but he failed to object to the amount requested by the City
or the finding that the amount was reasonable. Neely’s objection “comes too late.”
Stuart I. Levin & Assocs., P.A. v. Rogers,
156 F.3d 1135, 1142 (11th Cir. 1998).
We AFFIRM the denial of Neely’s motion to vacate.
2