Filed: May 15, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Case: 14-14110 Date Filed: 05/15/2015 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 14-14110 Non-Argument Calendar _ District Court No. 6:13-cv-00907-GKS-TBS ROBERT CREIGHTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Defendants-Appellees. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida _ (May 15, 2015) Before TJOFLAT, HULL and ROSENBAUM, Circu
Summary: Case: 14-14110 Date Filed: 05/15/2015 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 14-14110 Non-Argument Calendar _ District Court No. 6:13-cv-00907-GKS-TBS ROBERT CREIGHTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Defendants-Appellees. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida _ (May 15, 2015) Before TJOFLAT, HULL and ROSENBAUM, Circui..
More
Case: 14-14110 Date Filed: 05/15/2015 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 14-14110 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ District Court No. 6:13-cv-00907-GKS-TBS ROBERT CREIGHTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Defendants-Appellees. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida _______________ (May 15, 2015) Before TJOFLAT, HULL and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges. Case: 14-14110 Date Filed: 05/15/2015 Page: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: For the reasons stated in the District Court’s order of July 14, 2014, denying appellant’s motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rules 60(b)(1) and (b)(6), we agree that appellant failed to present an adequate basis for granting relief from the District Court’s judgment due to “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect,” or “(6) any other reason that justifies relief.” We therefore find no abuse of discretion in the denial of appellant’s motion. AFFIRMED. 2
