### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT D ecember 16, 20 05 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 05- 1225 8 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 99-02443 -CV -A SG ANDREW

ALLOCO, ABRAHAM FERNANDEZ, STENY GARCIA-MONTES, ALEX SILVA, JOHN ALLEN, Pl ai nti ff s- A ppe llants , AGUSTIN QUEV EDO, et al ., Pl ai nti ff s,
ve rs us CITY OF CORAL GABLES, a Mu ni ci pa l Co rp or at io n, U N IV E RS IT Y O F MI A MI , aN on- Pr of it, F lor ida Co rp or at ion , D ef en da nts -Appe lle es , THE FRATERNAL O RDER OF POLICE, L odge N o. 7, In te rv en or -D ef en da nt.2 ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S out he rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (D ec em be r 16, 200 5) Be fo re D U BI N A , H U L L a nd M A RC U S, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Appellants Andrew Alloco, Abraham Fernandez, Steny Garcia- Montes, A lex Si lva , a nd J ohn A lle n c ha lle nge t he dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de nia l of the ir pos t- j udgm en t
m oti on t o di squa lif

y , in w hic h th ey

sou ght r ec usa l of

U nit ed S ta te s D istri ct

Jud ge A la n S . Go ld. Appe llants a sse rt ( 1) tha t the m oti on t o di squa lif y w as e rr one ousl y transferr ed to the Chief U nited States District Court Judg e for the S outh ern D istrict of F lor ida , r athe r than be ing c onsi de re d by Jud ge G old

him se lf ; a nd ( 2) tha t the
m otion to disq ualify

shoul d have been granted due to certain rela tions hips b etwe en J u d g e G o l d , h i s w i f

e , a n d h i s l a w c l e rka n dA p p e l l e e , t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f M i a mi (“ U M” ). Appe llants a lso a sk u s to va ca te a ll pr ior or de rs e nte re d by

Jud ge G old , inc lud ing adis posi tiv e sum m ar y j udgm en t or de r tha t w e pr ev iou sly a ff irm ed on
ap p e a l
. A f

t e r c a r e f u l r e v i e w , w e a f

f i rm. T he pa rti es a re f

am ili ar w iththe r el ev an t ba ck gr ound f ac ts and w e onl y
summ arize them

here. O n Novem

ber 25, 1996, Appellants, Coral G ables police3

of fi ce rs w ho w er e em

plo y ed a s pu bli c sa fe ty

of fi ce rs a t U M, w hic h pa id the ir sa la ri es , sue d U M and the Ci ty

of Co ral Gab les ( “ Ci ty ”) , a lle gin g, int er a lia , ne gli ge nt mi s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , c o n s p i r a c y, F l o r i d aR I C O v i o l a t i o n s , a n d 4 2 U
. S
. C
. § 1 9 8 3 c l a i ms based on an agreem ent betwee n th e Ci t y and UM w hereby

Appellants claim

they
w e r e c o n s i d e r e dp a rt
- t i me C i t y e mp l o y e e s a n d t h e r e f o r e n o te n t i t l e dt o t h e s a me ri ght s, pa y , a nd b en ef

its a ff or de d to fu ll- tim e Ci ty

e m plo y ee s. Appe llants or igi na lly fi le d th ei r co m

pla int in sta te c ourt a nd the a ct ionw as r em ove d, pur suant t o th e App el le es ’ m ot io n, t o fe de ral co ur t o n S ep te m be r 8, 1 99 9. A ft er e xte nsi ve dis co ve ry , the f ili ng o f a fi fth a m en de d c om pla int , a nd
se ttl em en t ne got ia tio ns, in a 95- pa ge or de r, Jud ge Gol d gr an te d Appe lle es ’ m oti on fo r sum m ar y j udgm en t an d en te re d fi na l j udgm en t onA ugus t 23 , 200 2. A llo cc o v. City of Coral G ables, 221 F. Supp. 2d 1317 ( S. D. Fla. 2002 ). On a ppeal, w e af

firm ed that decision withou t opin ion, pursuant to 11th Cir. R. 36-1. A llocco v. City of Coral Ga bles, 88 Fed. Appx. 380 (11th Cir. 2003). A bout f our m ont hs a ft er

our m an da te iss ue d, on Apr il 26, 200 4, A ppe llants fi le d th e ins ta nt m oti on t o di squa lif y Ju dg e Gol d. OnMay

7, 200 4, Jud ge G old tr an sf er re d th e m oti on t o C hie f Judg e W ill ia m J. Z loc h who r ef er re d it to a m ag istra te j udge to pr ep ar e a Re port and R ec om m en da tio n ( R& R)
. T he m ag istra te j udge
co nc lud ed

tha t no ne of

A ppe llants ’ ar gum en ts w ar rante d the re cu sa l of

Jud ge G old4

an d th at , e ve n if

a n ob lig at ionto re cu se e xis te d, a ny r es ult ing erro r was ha rm le ss be ca use , on a ppe al f ro m th e summ ar

y j udgm en t de ci sio n, thi s C ourt a ff irm ed the
en tr y of sum m ar y jud gm en t. Appe llants f

ile d vari ous obj ec tio ns t o th e R& R, but , not ab ly , did not obj ec t to the tr an sf er of the m oti on t o di squa lif

y f ro m Jud ge G old

to Chief Judge Zloch. Af

ter cond ucting a de nov o reviewof the rec ord, the district court ad opt ed the R& R and de nie d the m oti on to disqu al if y . T his appe al f

oll ow ed
. I n th is ap pe al , A ppe llants a sk u s to r ev er se th e de ci sio n onthe m oti on t o di squa lif y a nd
va ca te a ll of

Jud ge G old ’ s or de rs tha t pr e- da te the m oti on to dis qua lif y , inc lud ing the
sum m ar y j udgm en t or de r tha t w e pr ev iou sly a ff irm ed on d ir ec t a

ppe al
. As a p re l i m i n ar y m at t er , A p p e l l a n t s d i dn o tra i s e t h e i s s u e o f J u d g e G o l d ’s transfer of the m otion to disq ualify to Chief Judge Zlo ch at an y t i m e in the district
co urt. T he y

did not obj ec t w he n th e tr an sf

er to ok pla ce , nor

did the y obj ec t a t any poin t in the proceedings before the m agistrate j udge, either bef ore or af ter issuance of the R& R. F ina lly , the y

did not obj ec t to Ch ie f Judg e Z loc h pr ior to h is a dopt ion of th e R&Ran d d en ia l o f th e m ot io n t o d is qu al ify. W e ha ve c onsi ste ntl y

he ld tha t we w ill not co nsi de r iss ue s ra ise d for the f ir st tim e on appeal, w ith several excepti ons, includin g when the issue “ invo lves a pure qu es ti on of l aw, an d i f refu sa l to co ns id er it wou ld res ul t in a m is carr ia ge of ju st ic e.” Narey v. D ean, 32 F.3d 1521 , 1526-27 (11th Cir. 1994 ); see a lso Acce ss Now, Inc.5

v. S ou t hw e st

A i r l i ne s C o. , 3 85 F
. 3d

1 32 4, 1 33 1- 32 ( 11 t h C i r . 2 00 4) ( c i t i ng c a se s).

“ T he r ea son fo r thi s pr ohi bit ionis pla in: a s ac ourt of appe al s, w e re vie w c la im s of j udicial e rr o r i n t h e trial courts. I f w e w ere to regularly address question s . . . that dis tr ic ts c ourt ne ve r ha d a ch an ce to ex am ine , w e w oul d not onl y w as te our r es our ce s, but al so de via te fr om the es se nti al na tur e, pur pose , a nd c om

pe te nc e of

a n a ppe lla te
co urt. ” A cc es s N ow , 385 F
. 3d at 1331
. S inc e A ppe llants r ai se d th ei r ch al le nge to the transfer of the m otion for the f irst t i m e o n ap p ea l, and no ne of the “ exceptional ci rc um stanc es ” in wh ic h we ha ve al low ed cl ai m s to be r ai se d f or the f ir st t im e ex ist in the ins ta nt c as e, w e co nc lud e tha t Appe llants w ai ve d this cl ai m an d we w ill not consider it at this late juncture. A s f or the de nia l o f th e dis qua lif ic at ionm oti on, w e re vie w f or abuse of dis cr et ionthe dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de nia l of ar ec usa l m oti on. S ee By rn e v. Nezh at , 261 F. 3d 10 75, 1100 (11t h Cir. 2001 ); Jaffr ee v. W allace, 837 F. 2d 1461, 1465 (11th Cir. 1988 ). Abuse-of-discretion review
re co gni ze s th e range of poss ibl e con cl usi ons the tr ia l j udge m ay r ea ch
. By definition . . . under the abuse of discretion stand ard of r eview ther e wil l b e oc cas io ns in whi ch we affi rm th e d is tri ct co ur t ev en th ou gh we would have gone the oth er w ay had it been our call
. Th at is how an ab us e o f di sc ret io n st an da rd di ffer s fro m a de no vo st an da rdof r ev ie w. A s w e ha ve sta te d pr ev iou sly , the ab use of dis cr et ion standa rd al low s a range of c hoi ce f or th e di st ri ct

c ourt, so l ong as tha t c hoi ce doe s no t co nst itu te ac le ar

e rr or of j udgm en t.6

Unit e d S t a t e s v. F r a z i e r , 3 87 F
. 3d 1 24 4, 1 25 9 ( 11 t h C i r . 2 00 4) ( e n banc ) ( i nt e rnal quot at ionm ar

ks an d ci ta tio ns om itt ed ), ce rt
. de nie d, 125 S. Ct
. 2516 , 161 L
. E d. 2d 11 14 (20 05 ). Ba se d onour

e xte nsi ve r ev ie w of

the r ec or d, as w el l as care fu l c onsi de ra tio n of the pa rt ie s’ br ie fs , an d the thor ough an d we ll- re as one d R&R , w e can f ind no a buse of dis cr et ionin the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s a do pt io n of the R& R, a ft er tha t c ourt’ s de
n o v o r e v i e w o f

t h e r e c o r d , a n dt h e c o u rt ’s d i s p o s i t i o n o f t h e mo t i o n t o d i s q u a l i f

y. A cc or din gly , w e af

fi rm it s j udgm en t i n a ll re spe ct s. AFFIRMED.