[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-11954

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

JAMES MCCONICO, JR., 

as one of the Intestated Estate of his Father

JMC Sr.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

TOP GOLF INTERNATIONAL INC., 

DOLF BERLE, 

ERIK ANDERSON, 

CALLAWAY GOLF COMPANY, 

OLIVER G. BREWER, III, et al., 

USCA11 Case: 22-11954 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 04/21/2023 Page: 1 of 9
2 Opinion of the Court 22-11954

Defendants-Appellees.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Alabama

D.C. Docket No. 2:21-cv-01024-LSC

____________________

Before WILSON, NEWSOM, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

James McConico, proceeding pro se,1 appeals the district 

court’s denial of his post-judgment Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

60(b) motion for relief from the district court’s refusal to vacate a 

prescreening order that prevented McConico from filing his civil 

complaint alleging Constitutional violations and various property 

claims under Alabama law. McConico alleged in his Rule 60(b) 

motion that the judgment was void because he had never consented to a magistrate judge presiding over his case and the magistrate judge lacked jurisdiction to order his complaint be withdrawn. On appeal, he argues that his Rule 60(b) motion should 

have been granted because he never consented to a magistrate 

1 McConico’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED because the legal issues in this case are not complex, and McConico has shown himself to be 

capable of presenting his arguments. See Kilgo v. Ricks, 983 F.2d 189, 193 

(11th Cir. 1993); Fowler v. Jones, 899 F.2d 1088, 1096 (11th Cir. 1990).

USCA11 Case: 22-11954 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 04/21/2023 Page: 2 of 9
22-11954 Opinion of the Court 3 

judge presiding over his case, so the magistrate judge did not have 

jurisdiction and the judgment was void.2 

When appropriate, we will review the denial of a Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 60(b) motion for abuse of discretion. Aldana v. Del Monte 

Fresh Produce N.A., Inc., 741 F.3d 1349, 1355 (11th Cir. 2014). 

However, we review de novo a district court’s ruling upon a Rule 

60(b)(4) motion to set aside a judgment as void “because the question of the validity of a judgment is a legal one.” Burke v. Smith, 

252 F.3d 1260, 1263 (11th Cir. 2001) (quotation marks omitted). 

Pro se pleadings are generally held to a less stringent standard than 

pleadings drafted by attorneys and will be liberally construed. 

Campbell v. Air Jam. Ltd., 760 F.3d 1165, 1168 (11th Cir. 2014). 

Under Rule 60(b) the court may relieve a party from a final 

judgment for several reasons, including fraud, a void judgment, or 

any other reason that merits relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3), (4), 

and (6). Rule 60(d)(3) provides that “[t]his rule does not limit a 

court’s power to . . . set aside a judgment for fraud on the court.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(d)(3). Rule 60(b)(6) motions must demonstrate 

that circumstances are sufficiently extraordinary to warrant relief. 

Aldana, 741 F.3d at 1355. Moreover, in order to prevail, an appellant must do more than show that a grant of his motion might have 

been warranted; he must demonstrate a justification for relief so 

compelling that the district court was required to grant relief. 

Maradiaga v. United States, 679 F.3d 1286, 1291 (11th Cir. 2012)

2 McConico’s motion to substitute his brief on appeal is GRANTED.

USCA11 Case: 22-11954 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 04/21/2023 Page: 3 of 9
4 Opinion of the Court 22-11954

(citation and quotation omitted). “A motion for reconsideration

cannot be used to relitigate old matters, raise argument or present 

evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.” Cummings v. Dep’t of Corr., 757 F.3d 1228, 1234 (11th Cir.

2014) (quotation marks omitted). 

“Generally, a judgment is void under Rule 60(b)(4) if the 

court that rendered it lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter, or 

of the parties, or if it acted in a manner inconsistent with due process of law. Burke, 252 F.3d at 1263 (quotation marks omitted). 

The jurisdiction and powers of magistrate judges are set 

forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636. Magistrate judges “may be assigned such 

additional duties as are not inconsistent with the Constitution and 

laws of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3). A magistrate 

judge can be designated to hear even dispositive pretrial matters, if 

the magistrate judge’s actions are submitted, along with proper objections thereto, for review by a district judge de novo. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1)(B). 

A review of the course of proceedings in the district court 

will facilitate an understanding of our resolution. In July 2021, 

McConico filed a civil complaint against Top Golf International 

and its two CEOs, Dolf Berle and Erik Anderson; its parent company, Callaway Golf Company and its CEO, Oliver G. Brewer, III; 

West River Group and its CEO, Erik Anderson ; Providence Equity 

Partners and its CEO, Jonathan M. Nelson; Dundon Capital Partners, and its CEO Thomas Dundon; Jefferson County Civic Authority; Jefferson County Commission (collectively, “the 

USCA11 Case: 22-11954 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 04/21/2023 Page: 4 of 9
22-11954 Opinion of the Court 5

Defendants”). He alleged that he had bought property located in 

Alabama, but the seller later filed for foreclosure on the property. 

McConico further alleged that after the foreclosure, the Jefferson 

County Civic Authority unlawfully took possession of the property 

and sold it to the Defendants. He asserted that the Defendants’ 

acquisition of the property was unlawful, and his ownership could 

not be divested. Additionally, he asserted that the Defendants 

failed to exercise reasonable care by failing to conduct a title search 

and that the Defendants had no valid defenses. He sought 31 million dollars in damages and the invalidation of the foreclosure and 

any contracts based on the foreclosure. 

The same day he filed his complaint, McConico filed a motion to vacate a 1997 order that required prescreening of any filings 

by McConico (“1997 Prescreening Order”). He argued that the order should not be enforced because it was 24 years old, and enforcing the order would be “laughable” and violations of his First, Seventh, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. McConico contended 

that as a paying litigant, his claims should not be subject to a frivolity analysis. He further argued that the Prison Litigation Reform 

Act (“PLRA”) warranted vacating the 1997 Prescreening Order and 

rendered it moot because he had three strikes under the PLRA, and 

therefore, could not bring a lawsuit. Docket Entry #3 is a notice 

that the case was assigned to a magistrate judge. 

On August 12, 2021, a magistrate judge entered an order to 

withdraw McConico’s complaint, refund his filing fee, and close 

the case because the 1997 Prescreening Order required that no 

USCA11 Case: 22-11954 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 04/21/2023 Page: 5 of 9
6 Opinion of the Court 22-11954

filing from McConico be accepted without prescreening by a judge 

or magistrate judge. Alternatively, the magistrate judge noted that 

McConico’s complaint was patently frivolous and without merit, 

the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, and his claims were 

barred by relevant statutes of limitation. 

On September 8, 2021, the magistrate judge entered a second order, which noted that McConico had submitted three sets of 

documents that he wished to file. The magistrate judge denied his 

request to file the documents so far as the documents sought reconsideration of the rejection of his lawsuit against the Defendants, 

because his requests were patently frivolous and without merit. 

However, the magistrate judge concluded that his challenges to the 

1997 Prescreening Order should be considered because McConico 

had tried to pay the filing fee instead of filing in forma pauperis, and 

the length of time since the issuance of the order made it unclear 

whether the order was still necessary to protect the court’s docket 

from abuse. The magistrate directed the Clerk to file McConico’s 

filing related to his objections to the 1997 Prescreening Order and 

assign a district judge to the case to review the objections. 

McConico’s objections were entered into the record. (Doc. 

8). As relevant to challenging the 1997 Prescreening Order, McConico argued that he never consented to a magistrate judge presiding over his case and the magistrate judge, therefore, did not have 

the authority to enforce the order. He objected to the court’s failure to rule on his motion to vacate the 1997 Prescreening order, 

and he argued that his payment of the filing fee negated the 1997 

USCA11 Case: 22-11954 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 04/21/2023 Page: 6 of 9
22-11954 Opinion of the Court 7

Prescreening Order because only the claims of non-paying litigants 

are subject to review for frivolity. 

The case was reassigned to Judge Coogler. Judge Coogler

reviewed McConico’s objections to the 1997 prescreening order 

and overruled them, noting that the order was put in place in 1997 

because at the time, McConico had filed over forty frivolous complaints since 1990. Additionally, the day before the magistrate

judge ruled, McConico’s objections, the district court had refused 

to vacate the 1997 Prescreening Order in another case pending before the district court at the time, ruling that McConico continued 

to file patently frivolous civil actions that were without merit and 

there was no reason to vacate the 1997 Prescreening Order. Thus, 

Judge Coogler, in McConico’s case, overruled McConico’s objections to the 1997 prescreening order, thus approving the magistrate 

judge’s recommendation and enforcing the 1997 prescreening order.

McConico appealed both the withdrawal of his complaint 

and the district court’s order refusing to vacate the 1997 Prescreening Order, but both appeals were dismissed for want of prosecution 

after McConico failed to pay filing fees. 

In April 2022, McConico filed a motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3), (4), (6) and 

60(d)(3). He argued that the Clerk of Court prevented his family 

from filing his lawsuit and then falsely claimed he had consented to 

a magistrate judge presiding over the case. He contended that the 

Clerk committed fraud because he never consented to the 

USCA11 Case: 22-11954 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 04/21/2023 Page: 7 of 9
8 Opinion of the Court 22-11954

magistrate judge, and without his consent, the magistrate judge 

never had jurisdiction to make a finding regarding the statute of 

limitations of his claims. McConico argued that the Clerk of Court 

and the magistrate judge conspired to “change the narrative” to 

provide the magistrate judge with subject matter jurisdiction using 

“fraudulently implied consent.” 

Judge Coogler denied the Rule 60 motion. He concluded 

that there was no fraud or any other reason to void the judgment. 

To the extent that McConico challenged the role of the magistrate

judge, Judge Coogler held that the magistrate judge properly exercised his authority under 28 U.S.C. § 636 because the magistrate 

judge’s rulings were reviewed and accepted by the district court. 

And Judge Coogler rejected McConico’s challenges to the 1997 prescreening order, relying on Eleventh Circuit cases approving such 

prescreening orders. 

McConico timely filed a notice of appeal. The case was initially dismissed for want of prosecution, but it was reinstated after 

McConico moved to set aside the dismissal. 

Here, Judge Coogler did not abuse his discretion by denying

McConico’s Rule 60(b) motion. Aldana, 741 F.3d at 1355. Judge

Coogler did not err in rejecting McConico’s arguments based on

Rule 60(b)(3) and (6) because there was no fraud or other reason to

grant relief from the judgment. And Judge Coogler did not err in

rejecting McConico’s arguments under Rule 60(b)(4) because

McConico failed to show that there was a lack of jurisdiction or a 

violation of due process. Burke, 252 F.3d at 1263. Contrary to

USCA11 Case: 22-11954 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 04/21/2023 Page: 8 of 9
22-11954 Opinion of the Court 9 

McConico’s suggestion, his consent to the magistrate judge’s actions in this case was not required. The magistrate judge’s actions

were reviewed by Judge Coogler who overruled McConico’s objections. And Judge Coogler enforced the 1997 prescreening order.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court

is 

AFFIRMED. 

USCA11 Case: 22-11954 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 04/21/2023 Page: 9 of 9