F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT October 1, 2008 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 07- 1563 0

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 0- 01 33 4 M D-FAM DMD DO NA LD RO BBIN S, Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant, ve rs us AETNA U S HEALTHCARE, PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERIC A, D ef en dants -Appe lle es .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (O ct ob er1, 200 8) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, and A N D E RS O N , Ci rc uit

Jud ge , and COH IL L, * District Judge. PE R CU RIA M:

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ * Honora ble Mauric e B . Cohill , J r., United States District Judge f or the Western D istrict of Pennsylvania, sitting by

desig nation.Moreove r, we rea dily conclude in the alternative that the district court’s Septe mber 14, 1 20 06 , d ism iss a l or de r i s n ot v oid . T he no tic e to m e mbe rs of the F e br ua ry 8, 20 05 , Se rv ic e L ist (which inc luded Appellant’ s counsel) w as re asonably calc ulated to g ive notice to Appe llant, and is p re sume d to have be e n r e c e ive d. Th e re c or d in thi s c a se do e s n ot e sta

bli shno n- re c e ipt . 2 A ft er thi s a ppe al w as sc he dul ed

f or or al arg um en t, Appe llant m ove d th at the ca se be take n of

f the or al arg um en t c al en dar an d de ci de d onthe br ie fs . W e ini tia lly de nie d th e m oti on, but

appe llant m ove d f

or r ec onsi de ratio n r ei te ratin g th e re que st that the appe al be de ci de d onthe br ie fs w ith out or al arg um en t. W e gr an t the m ot io n fo r rec on si de rat io n, an d d eci de th e cas e o n t he ba si s o f th e b rie fs . Appe llant m ak es se ve ra l arg um en ts f or the f ir st t im e on a

ppe al . P ur suant t o well -es tabl is he d c as e la w in th is cir cu it , we dec li ne to en te rta in su ch arg um en ts . Th u s , we d ec l i n e t o en t ert ai nAp p el l an t ’s ar g u m en tth atth e d i s tri ctco u rt ’s Se pte m be r 14, 200 6, dis m iss al or de r w as voi d. S im ilarl y , w e de cl ine to en te rt ai n 1 Appellant’ s argum ent for the fir st tim e on appeal that the dism issal order wa s en te re d onthe w ro ng d oc ke t, thu s r en de ri ng A ppe llant’ s O ct obe r 16, 200 7, m oti on t o v a c a t e t i mel y. Th e o n l y ar g u m en tp re s en t edt o th e d i s tri ctco u rti ns up p o rto f Ap p el l an t ’s m otion to vacate the Se ptem ber 14, 2006, order wa s that Appellant “ has no record o f r ec ei v i n g th e C o u rt ’s Or d eran das s u ch fa i l edt o re s p o n d .” Se e A p p el l an t ’s Oc t o b er1 6 , 2 0 0 7 “ M o t i o nb y Pl ai n t i ff Do n al dRo b b i n s , DM D, t o Va ca t e C o u rt ’s3

Se pte m be r 13, 200 6, O rd er ” an d it s atta ch ed “ Me m or an dum

of L awin Su

ppor t of Pl ai nti ff ’ s M oti on t o V ac at e Co urt’ s S ep te m be r 13, 200 6, O rd er . ” W e co nstru e Appe llant’ s m oti on t o be pur suant t o F ed . R. Ci v. P. 60( b) (1 ) se ek ing r el ie f fr om j udgm en t ona cc ount

of m ist ak e, ina dve rt en ce or e xc usa ble ne gle ct . W e ag re e w ith the dis tr ic t c ourt that the m oti on w as unt im el y , havin g be enf ile d m or e than on e y ear af te r en tr y of the S ep te m

be r 14, 200 6, dis m iss al or de r. M or eo ve r, w e not e th atAp p el l an th as fa i l edt o es t ab l i s hex cu s ab l e n eg l ec t . Ap p el l an t ’s re pr es en tatio n to the dis tr ic t c ourt that he ha s “ no r ec or d of r ec ei vin g” the May

16, 2006 , or de r doe s no t e sta bli sh n on- re ce ipt . T he or de r pr ovi de d f or se rv ic e uponthe

“ Feb ru ary 8, 2 00 5, Se rv ic e Lis t,” ali stwhi ch in cl ud edApp el la nt ’s cou ns el . Furtherm ore, num erous responses to th at sam e order w ere noticed to th e Fe bruary 8, 200 5, S er

vic e L ist , w hic h sh oul d have a le rt ed Appe llant, e ve n if

Appe llant d id no t fo r so m e rea so n re cei ve no ti ce o f th e Ma y 16 , 20 06 , ord er i ts el f. H av ing c ar ef

ull y c onsi de re d th e br ie fs and r el ev an t part s of the r ec or d inthi s ca se , w e re ad ily

c onc lud e that the j udgm en t of the dis tr ic t c ourt i s du e to b e af fi rm ed . AFFIR MED.