United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-30239

Summary Calendar

J Cory Cordova, 

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Louisiana State University Agricultural ; Mechanical 

College Board of Supervisors; Karen Curry; Nicholas 

Sells; Kristi Anderson; University Hospital ; Clinics, 

Incorporated; Lafayette General Medical Center, 

Incorporated; Lafayette General Health System, 

Incorporated, 

Defendants—Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 6:19-CV-1027

Before Clement, Ho, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 8, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-30239 Document: 00516085468 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/08/2021
No. 21-30239

2

Plaintiff appeals both the district court’s March 24, 2021 final order 

dismissing all claims against the LSU Defendants and Lafayette General 

Defendants and its April 14, 2021 final order granting in part the LSU 

Defendants’ motion for attorney’s fees and costs.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(a)(1)(A) provides that a notice of 

appeal must be filed in the district court within 30 days after entry of the 

judgment or order appealed from. Rule 4(a)(4)(A)(iii), however, provides 

that in the event a party timely files a motion for attorney’s fees under Rule 

54, and if the district court extends the time to appeal under Rule 58, the 30-

day clock does not begin to tick until the district court’s entry of the order 

disposing of the motion for attorney’s fees.

“A timely filed notice of appeal is an absolute prerequisite to this 

court’s jurisdiction.” Moody Nat. Bank of Galveston v. GE Life & Annuity 

Assur. Co., 383 F.3d 249, 250 (5th Cir. 2004) (citing Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of 

Corrs., 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978)). “[P]ost judgment motions addressing 

attorney’s fees can only extend the time for appeal if (1) the motion is filed 

before the delay for appeal expires and (2) the court orders that the motion 

be considered as a Rule 59 motion.” Id.; see also Kleinman v. City of Austin, 

749 F. App’x 294, 295 (5th Cir. 2019) (unpub.) (quoting Moody for the 

proposition that “[m]otions addressing costs and attorney’s fees . . . are 

considered collateral to the judgment, and do not toll the time period for filing 

an appeal.”).

Though Plaintiff filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, the order 

respecting which was not issued until April 14, 2021, there is no order from 

the district court extending the time for Plaintiff to appeal its March 24, 2021 

Case: 21-30239 Document: 00516085468 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/08/2021
No. 21-30239

3

order dismissing Plaintiff’s claims on the merits.1 Plaintiff’s deadline to 

appeal that order was April 23, 2021. Because he did not file his notice of 

appeal with respect to the district court’s March 24, 2021 merits order until 

April 27, 2021, his appeal was untimely. As such, the court lacks jurisdiction 

to review Plaintiff’s appeal of the district court’s March 24, 2021 order 

dismissing his claims against the LSU Defendants and Lafayette General 

Defendants.

His appeal of the district court’s April 14, 2021 order granting the 

LSU Defendants’ motion to tax costs, though timely filed, fares no better. 

Plaintiff dedicates his entire brief to arguing that the district court lacked 

subject matter jurisdiction in the first instance. But he does not even attempt 

to press, let alone substantiate, his argument that the district court erred in 

taxing costs against him. His failure to do so is fatal to his appeal. Davis v. 

Maggio, 706 F.2d 568, 571 (5th Cir. 1983) (“Claims not pressed on appeal are 

deemed abandoned.”).

Plaintiff also argues that new evidence discovered on appeal reveals a 

conflict of interest that deprived him of due process in the proceedings in the 

district court and thus justifies relief under Rule 60(b). He asserts that, 

because the conflict of interest was brought to light during the pendency of 

this appeal, he had no opportunity to request Rule 60(b) relief from the 

district court. Thus, Plaintiff requests that this court grant relief under Rule 

60(b) and vacate the underlying “judgment [of the district court] dismissing 

his case on the merits.” This court’s jurisdiction is limited to appeals from 

the “final decisions of the district courts of the United States” and certain 

interlocutory orders and decrees. 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Plaintiff does not 

1 The district court denied the LSU Defendants’ request for attorney’s fees, but it 

granted their request for costs in the amount of $1,068.80.

Case: 21-30239 Document: 00516085468 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/08/2021
No. 21-30239

4

dispute that he did not file this Rule 60(b) Motion with the district court. 

Rule 60(b) does not equip this court with jurisdiction. See Cooter & Gell v. 

Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 406 (1990) (holding that “Rule 11 does not 

apply to appellate proceedings,” because “Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1 

. . . indicates that the Rules only ‘govern the procedure in the United States 

district courts’”); Sheldon v. Khanal, 502 F. App’x 765, 773 (10th Cir. 2012) 

(rejecting request on appeal for Rule 60(b)(2) relief because “the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure apply to the district courts, not to the courts of 

appeals”). Plaintiff was required to either bring this Motion before the 

district court under Rule 62.1 or raise this issue in his briefing on appeal. He 

did neither. 

We DISMISS Plaintiff’s appeal of the judgment and AFFIRM the 

costs award.

We DENY Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Judgment Pursuant to 

Rule 60(b). 

Case: 21-30239 Document: 00516085468 Page: 4 Date Filed: 11/08/2021