FI LED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEV ENT H CI RCUI T SEPT EMBER 23, 2 009 T HOMAS K . KAHN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 8- 16 63 3 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNos . 07 -0 00 25 -CV-WLB-1, 0 5- 13 65 8- BKC-S D IN RE: YULIN MA, Deb to r.

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- JESS IE L.-S. AU, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us YULIN MA, Pl ai nt iff Thi rdParty

Pla in ti ff App el lant , GUILLAUME M. W IENTJES, Pl ai nt iff Thi rdParty

Defen da nt App el le e.__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So ut he rnDis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Sep te m be r 23 , 20 09 ) Befo re BLACK, CARNES an d F AY, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: Yul inMa, p ro ceed in g p ro se, app eal s the di st ric t co urt’s o rd er d en y in g h is m ot io n fo r a jury tri al to alt er o r am en d, h is m ot io n i n l im in e, an d h is ren ewed m ot io n fo r rec on si de rat io n o f it s o rd er d is m is si ng hi s p ers on al in jury tortcla im s ag ai ns t J es si e L.-S. Au an d Gu il laum e M. Wien tjes un de r 28 U.S.C. § 1 57 (b )(5 ). The di st ric t co urt d is m is se d M a’s cl ai m s u nd er Fe d.R .Civ .P. 41 (b ) aft er h e fai le d to co m pl y with am ag is tra te jud ge ’s ord er tha t re qu ire d p aym en t o f ex pe ns es as a res ul t o f hi s fa il ur e to m eethi s d is co ve ry ob li ga ti on s. Th e co urt fo un d tha t, b as ed on Ma’s o wn t es ti m on y , he h adsu ffi ci en t fu nd s t o p ay th e awardan d tha t h e d id no t m ak e a g oo d- fai th effo rt t o wo rkou t a m on th ly paym en t p lan. Madi d n ot reque stan y

tra ns cri pt s af

te r fi li ng hi s n ot ic e o f ap pe al .

I. 2Ma c on te nd s tha t the di st ric t co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n b y di sm is si ng hi s cl ai m s u nd er Ru le 41 (b ) be cau se he di d n otha ve no ti ce tha t h is no n- pa ym en t co ul d re su ltindi sm is sa l an d h e co m pl ie d wi th th e o rd er b y

m ak in g ago od -fai th effo rt t o wo rkou t a m on th ly paym en t p lan. He al so co nt en ds th atth e co urt fa il ed to co ns id er an y

les se r sa nc ti on s b efo re d is m is si ng hi s cl ai m s. W e rev ie w a di sm is sa l u nd er Fe d.R .Civ .P. 41 (b ) on ly for anab us e o f di sc ret io n. Go fo rth v. Own es , 76 6 F .2d15 33 , 15 35 (11 th Cir . 19 85 ). The d is tri ct co urt’s fa ctua l fi nd in gs are re vi ewedon ly for cl ear e rro r. Zoca ras v. Ca st ro , 46 5 F.3 d 4 79 , 48 3 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 6) . “ A di st ric t co urt i s au th or iz ed , onde fen da nt ’s m ot io n, t o d is m is s an act io n fo r fai lu re t o p ro se cu te or t o o be y a co urt o rd er o r fed eral rul e.” Gof

orth , 76 6 F .2dat 1 53 5. “ Dis mis sa l o f a cas e wit h p reju di ce i s co ns id ereda sa nc ti on of l as t re so rt, app li cab le on ly in ex tre m e ci rcu m st an ces .” Id . Inrev ie win g adi sm is sa l u nd er Ru le 41 (b ), we co ns id er “ whe th er the re i s a c le ar reco rdof d el ay

or wi ll fu l co nt em

ptan d afin di ng th atles se r sa nc ti on s wo ul d n ot su ffi ce.” Id . (qu ot at io n o m it te d) . The d is tri ctco urt’s fi nd in g re ga rd in g l es se r sa nc ti on s m ay

be im pl ic itor e xp li ci t. Grat to n v . GreatAm . Comm c’ns , 17 8 F.3 d 1 37 3, 1 37 4 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 9) . Mere n eg li ge nc e o r co nf us io n i s n otsu ffi ci en t to jus ti fy a fi nd in g o f de lay

or wi ll fu l m is co nduc t. Mc Kelv ey v. AT & T Tech s., In c., 78 9 F .2d15 18 , 15 20 (11 th Cir . 19 86 ). Dis m is sa l p ur su an t t o R ul e 4 1( b) 3“up on di sr eg ardof an o rd er, es pe ci al ly whe re the li ti ga ntha s b eenfor ewarn ed ,

ge ne ral ly is n otanab us e o f di sc ret io n.” Mo on v. News om e, 86 3 F .2d83 5, 8 37 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 9) . Und er the Fed eral Ru le s o f App el la te Pro cedur e, anap pe ll an t h as th e dut y to ord er an d fi le with the di st ric t co urt an y ne ces sary

tra ns cri pt s “ [w]ith in[te n] da y s af te r fi li ng th e n ot ic e o f ap pe al or e ntry of an o rd er d is po si ng of the las t ti m el y rem ai ni ng m ot io n o f a ty pe sp eci fie d i n [F ed .R.App .P.] 4( a)(4 )(A), whi ch ev er i s l at er.” Fe d.R .App .P. 10 (b )(1 ). “ If the ap pe ll an t i nt en ds to urg e o n ap pe al th ata fi nd in g o r co nc lu si on is un supp orte d b y th e ev id en ce o r is co nt rary to th e ev id en ce, the ap pe ll an t m us t i nc lu de inth e rec or d atra ns cri ptof a ll ev id en ce rel ev an t t o tha t fi nd in g o r co nc lu si on .” Fed .R.App .P. 10 (b )(2 ). “ [W] he re a fa il ur e to di sc ha rg e th [is ] bu rd enpre ve nt s u s fr om rev ie win g the di st ric t co urt’s d eci si on we or di na ril y

wil l af firm th e jud gm en t.” Se lm anv. Co bb Co un ty Sch. Dis t., 4 49 F.3 d 1 32 0, 1 33 3 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 6) . Bec au se Ma d idno t re qu es t a t ran sc rip t o f th e h eari ng wher e h e p ro vi de d te st im on y reg ard in g h is fin an ci al co nd it io n, we re ject M a’s ch al le ng es to th e di st ric t co urt’s fi nd in gs ba se d o n the tes ti m on y pre se nt edat t ha t h eari ng . In v ie w of th os e fi nd in gs , th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n b y di sm is si ng Ma’s

4cl ai m s u nd er Ru le 41 (b ) be cau se Ma wi ll fu ll y fai le d t o c om

pl y with the m ag is tra te ’s ord er, an d l es se r sa nc ti on s wo ul d n otsu ffi ce. II. Ma a ls o c on te nd s tha t the di st ric t co urt erredby den y in g h is ren ewed m ot io n fo r rec on si de rat io n o f th e m ag is tra te ’s ord er re qu iri ng hi s co m pl ianc e wit h hi s d is co ve ry

ob li ga ti on s, h is m ot io n i n l im in e to pro hi bi t Auan d Wien tjes ’s co un se l fr om

furth er p art ic ip at in g i n the act io n, an d h is m ot io n fo r a jury tri al to al te r or am en d the di st ric t co urt’s o rd er o f di sm is sa l. He arg ue s tha t the ir c ou ns el subm it te d fa ls e aff

id av it s t o the di st ric t co urt re ga rd in g h is fin an ci al co nd it io n and th atth e d is tri ctco urt fa il edto co ns id er the en ti re re co rd . W e rev ie w th e d en ia l o f a m ot io n u nd er Ru le 59 forab us e o f di sc ret io n. Arth urv. Ki ng , 50 0 F .3d13 35 , 13 43 (11 th Cir .), cert . den ie d, 1 28 S.Ct . 66 0 (2 00 7) . The o nl y

gro un ds forgra nt in g am ot io n u nd er Ru le 59 are n ewly di sc ov eredev id en ce o r m an ife sterro rs of l aw orfact . Id. “ [A] Rule 59 (e) m ot io n [can no t b e u se d] to rel it ig at e o ldm atte rs , rai se arg um en t o r pr es en t ev id en ce tha t co ul d h av e b eenrai se d p rio r to th e en try of jud gm en t.” Id . Any po st -jud gm en t m ot io n t o a lt er o r am en d the jud gm en t s erv edwithi n t enday s af te r th e en try of the jud gm en t, o th er tha n am ot io n t o c orrectpu rel y cle ric al erro rs , is withi n the sco pe of Ru le 59 (e) re gard le ss of i ts lab el . Uni te d S ta te s v . E. Air Lin es , Inc ., 79 2 5F.2 d 1 56 0, 1 56 2 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 6) ; Har co n v . Barg e Co ., Inc . v. D & G Bo at

Ren ta ls , Inc ., 78 4 F .2d66 5, 6 67 (5t h C ir. 1 98 6) . Po st -jud gm en t m ot io ns fil edm or e th anten day s af te r th e jud gm en t m ay

be co ns tru edas f

il edun de r Fed .R.Ci v.P . 60 (b ). Mah on e v . Ray , 32 6 F.3 d 1 17 6, 1 17 8 n .1 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 3) . “ Ru le 60 (b ) al lo ws a p arty to see k re li ef fro m a fi na l ju dg m en t, an d re qu es t re op en in g o f hi s ca se , un de r a l im it edsetof ci rcu m st an ces in cl ud in g fr au d, m is ta ke , andne wly di sc ov eredev id en ce.” Gon zal ez v . Cro sb y , 54 5 U.S. 5 24 , 52 8, 1 25 S.Ct . 26 41 , 26 45 -4 6, 1 62 L.Ed.2d48 0 (2 00 5) . Thu s, “ Ru le 60 (b ) m ay no t b e u se d t o c ha ll en ge m is ta ke s o f la w whi ch co ul d h av e b eenrai se d o n d ire ctap pe al .” Am . Ban ke rs Ins . Co. o f Fl a. v. Nw. Nat. In s. Co ., 19 8 F .3d13 32 , 13 38 (11 thCir . 19 99 ). To p rev ai l u nd er Ru le 60 (b )(3 ) ba se d o n fr au d, “ th e m ov in g p arty m us t p ro ve by clearan d co nv in ci ng ev id en ce tha t the adve rs e p arty ob ta in edth e v erd ic t thr ou gh frau d, m is rep res en ta ti on s, o r ot he r mis co nduc t” an d “ th atth e co nduc t p rev en te d [h im ] fro m ful ly pres en ti ng hi s ca se .” W ad de ll v. Hen dry Co un ty Sheri ff’s Offi ce, 3 29 F.3 d 1 30 0, 1 30 9 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 3) . The di stric t co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n b y de nyin g M a’s po st -jud gm en t m ot io ns be cau se th ey were fi le d m or e th anten day s af te r th e

6jud gm en t, at te m pt edto rel it ig at e is su es pre vi ou sl y de ci de d b y

th e d is tri ctco urt, an d d idno t s ho w th atth e jud gm en t was ob ta in edth ro ug h fr au d. III. Afte r rev ie w of the reco rdan d c on si de rat io n o f th e p art ie s’ bri efs , we affi rm . AFFIRMED.

7