FILED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IR C U IT NOV 29 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 12407 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C. Do c k e tNo . 0 5 - 2 1 4 3 8 - CV- J EM BK CY N o . 0 0 - 5 0 8 8 1 - BK C- RB I n R e : N I C O L A S L A U R E N T , D e b t o r .
__________________________________________________ N I C O L A S L A U R E N T , P la in tif f
- A p p e lla n t, v ersu s N A N C Y N . H E R K E R T , T ru s te e , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe r n D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( N ove m b e r 29, 2006) B efo re M A R C U S , W IL S O N an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:At the outset, we obse rve that we are without power to award this ty

pe of relief, a s the 1 fore closure order w as ente red by a state c ourt. Cf. Sieg el v. L ePore, 234 F .3d 1163, 1172 (11th Cir. 2000) (e n banc) (holdingthat “fe deral courts, other than the Unit ed S tates S upreme Court, have no authority to reviewthe final judgments of state c ourts”). We rejec t without further discussion L aurent’s challeng e to the district cour t’s denial of 2 his moti on to alter or amend the judgme nt. Be cause L aurent presente d no new e vidence , nor did he show that the district court ha d made a manifest er

ror of law o r fac t, he was not e ntitled to relief. See In re Kellog g , 197 F.3d 1116, 1119 ( 11th Cir. 1999 ) (o b s erv i n g that “[t] he only grounds for granting[debtor’s] m otion [ to alter or a mend] are ne wly-discovered evidenc e or manifest errors of law or f act” ). 2 N i col as L aure nt , a C h ap ter 1 3 d ebt or proceedi ng pro se, appeal s the di stri ct c our t ’ s a f

f i r m a nc e of

the ba nkrupt c y c o ur t ’ s A pr i l 19, 2005 or de rdi s c ha r gi ng the T rust ee and cl osi ng hi s c as e. O n app ea l , L au re ntar gu es thatthe bank rupt cy court prem atur ely ent er ed i t s order . A cc ordi ng t o L aure nt , the order re sul t ed i n an im p r o p e r f

o r e c lo s u r e o n h is h o m e p r io rto e x p ir a tio n o f th e 1 0 - d a y s ta y u n d e rR u le 62 of the F ed era l R ul e s of

C i vi l P r oc e dur e a nd R ul e 8017 of the F e de r a l R ul e s of B a n k ru p tc y P r o c e d u r e , w h ic h L a u r e n t c o n te n d s f o llo w e d e n tr y o f

th e A p r il 1 9 th or de r . H e s ugge s t s tha tthe f or e c l os ur e w a s a vi ol a t i on of the a ut om at i c s t a y a nd s h o u l d b e v a c a t e d . W h e n r e v i e wi n g a n a p p e a l f r o m a b a n k ru p t c y p r o c e e d i n g , we 1
re vi ew l egal det er m i nat i on s de n o v o , w het her f rom the bank rupt cy courtor di stri ct court , and revi ew the b an k ru p tc y c ou rt ’ s f ac tual fi nd i ng s f

or cl ea r e rr or. In re Si mmo n s , 2 0 0 F. 3 d 7 3 8 , 7 4 1 ( 1 1 th Ci r . 2 0 0 0 ) . W e a f f i r m. 2 U pon f i l i ng a pe t i t i on f

orba nkrupt c y , a n a ut om a t i c st ay i s i m pos e d a nd c ont i nue s unt i l the e a r l i e s tof the f ol l ow i n g: the c a s e i s ( 1) c l os e d; ( 2) di s m i s s e d; orEv e n if theprov isi on

did a pp ly to a c a sesu c h a s th is o ne , th e c rux of L a ure nt’ s a pp e a l is 3 a challen g e to th e f

o r e c lo s ur e o f

h is h o mea s v io lati v e o f th e a uto mati c s ta

y . Weh av e alre ady d e c i d e d i na p ri o r a p p e a lth atn o a

ut o m at i c s t ay

w a s i ne f f e c tatth e t i m e o f th e f

o r e c l o s ur e . S e e In re L aure nt , No. 06 -1 08 02 (1 1th Cir . Jul. 18 , 2 00 6) (u

np ub lis he d) . A s f

or L a ure nt’ s a rguments concerningthe Trustee ’s ac tions relatingto the administration of his pay ment plan and his claim that the bankr uptcy judgewas biase d ag ainst him, we will not consider these issues beca use they are raised f or the fir st tim e on appe al. Walker v. Jones,10 F.3d 1569, 1572 (11th Cir. 1994). 3 ( 3) d i s c h a r g e d . Se e 1 1 U . S. C. § 3 6 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) . Pu r s u a n tt o Ru l e 6 2 ( a ) , “ n o e x e c u t i on s ha l l i s s ue upon a j u d g m e ntnors ha l l pr oc e e di ngs be t a ke n f ori t s e nf

or c e m e nt u n til th e e x p ir a tio n o f

1 0 d a y s a f

te rits e n tr y .” F e d . R . C iv . P . 6 2 ( a ) . H o w e v e r , in th e b a n kr upt c y c ont e x t , Ru l e 6 2 a p p l i e s o n l y i n “ a d v e r s a r y p r o c e e d i n g s . ” Fe d . R. B a nk. P . 7062. R ul e 7001 of the F e de r a l R ul e s of

B a nkrupt c y P ro ced u re l i s t s the ty pe s of a dve r s a r y pr o ceedi ngs , none of w hi c h e nc om pa s s e s the pr oc e e di ngs i n vo l ved i n t hi s c as e. A cc ordi ng l y, the 10 -day st ay prov i si on of R ul e 62(a) does nota ppl y t o L a ur e nt ’ s ba nkrupt c y c a s e a n d t h e d i st r i c tc our tdi d note r rby e nt e r i ng i t s orderdi sc hargi ng the T rust ee and cl osi ng the ca se . 3 AF F I RME D.