F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT Sep tember 6 , 2 005 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN THCIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 05- 1194 0

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Dis tri ctCo urt No . 04 -2 17 33 -CV-UUB

YVETTEHOLMES CANNON, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us CARNIVAL CRUIS E LINES, a/k/a Carn iva l C or

por at ion , De fendant-Appellee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (S ep te m be r 6, 200 5)

Be fo re BL A CK , P RY O R and H IL L , Ci rc uit Jud ge s.A sec ond motion for rec onsideration wa s filed on Octobe r 28, 2004, and de nied by the 1 district court on De cembe r 30, 2004. 2 PE R CU RIA M: On May 10, 2005, a tw o-j udge panel of this court dism issed the plain tiffap pe llant’ s a

ppe al in part . I t f

ound that the appe al w as unt im el y f ile d a s to the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s or de r of

O ct obe r 14, 200 4, dis m iss ing the c om pla int w ith out pr ej udi ce , f

or f ai lur e to t im el y

r es pond to the or de r to s howc au se , and i ts o rd er of Oc tober 20, 2004, deny ing pl aintiff-appellant’ s m otion for r econsideration. W e ar e without jurisdiction to con sider either of these tw o orders. Fed. R.A pp.P. 4( a) (1 )( A ), ( a) (4 ); see W

right v. Pre ferred Research, Inc. , 891 F . 2d 8 86, 889 ( 11 th Cir. 1990 ). 1 The panel did allow, however, this appeal to proceed in part. I t found th at the notice of appeal wa s tim ely filed as to a third order of the district court, that fi le d M ar ch11, 200 5, de ny ing pla int if f- ap pe llant’ s c onstru ed

F ed . R. Ci v. P. 60( b) m ot io n fo r rel ie f fro m

jud gm en t. Se e R ic e v. F ord M oto r C o. , 88 F . 3d 9 14, 918 -1 9 (1 1 Cir . 19 96 )(the de ni al of aFed .R.Ci v.P . 60 (b ) m ot io n i s s ep arat el y ap pe al ab le ). thCouns e l f a ile d to c omp ly

wi th t wo pr e tr ia l de a dli ne s a

nd fa ile d to mov e to e nla

rg e the se 2 de a dli ne s p ri or

to t he ir e xpir atio n. Couns e l a lso fa ile d to sh owc a us e fo r h is f

a ilure to c omp ly with the order s of the district cour t. (The ‘ excusable neg lect of c lerica l error ’ off ere d in the third motion for rec onsideration is the same ‘ excusable neg lect of c lerica l error ’ off ere d in the first and second motions for r econside ration and r uled upon in two earlier orde rs of the district c ourt that are not before us.) 3 O ur j ur isd ic tio n is li m ite d to whe the r or not the dis tr ic t c ourt a

buse d it s discretion in th is third order, deny ing th e plaintiff-appellant’ s m otion for r elief fr om j udgm ent f

or the thi rd ti m e. I t do es not

e xte nd t o ac onsi de ratio n of the va li di ty of th e und erl y in g ju dg m en t. Se e Ca va lie rev . A lls tate In s. Co . , 996 F . 2d 1111 , 1115 (11 Cir. 1993 ). th Unde r the f

ed er al r ule s of c ivi l pr oc ed

ur e, ac ourt m ay

r el ie ve aparty

f ro m anor de r fo r m ist ak e, ina dve rt en ce , sur pr ise , e xc usa

ble ne gle ct

or any oth er r ea son j ustify ing relief fr om

the operation of the judgm ent. F ed.R. Civ.P. 60(b)(1), 60( b) (6 ). H er e the pla int if f- ap pe llant arg ue s th at

m an if es t i nj ust ic e w ill r es ult

if sh e d oe s n otha ve he r da y inco urt due to ex cu sabl e n eg le ct , i.e. , ac le ri ca l e rr or in her attorney ’ s office r esulting in her failure to file a tim ely scheduling report as or de re d by

the dis tr ic t c ourt. 2 Counsel no w c om

plains in the third m otionthat plaintiff-appellant’ s alleged personal injury

claim s are nowtim e-barr ed under the term s of her cr uise passeng er tic ke t. T he dis tr ic t c ourt c or re ct ly not ed that this is not

gr ound s f

or r ec onsi de ratio n4

as the te rm s of

the ti ck et w er e known to c ouns el at the ti m e the e ar lie r tw o m oti ons we re f iled. I t also noted th at counsel sho uld have exercised special caution so as not to j eo pard iz e his c lie nt’ s c la im a s th e co m

pla int w as f ile d j ust a s th e limitatio ns pe rio d s etby the ti ck etwas e xp iri ng . T he dis tr ic t c ourt c or

re ct ly f ound that the pla int if

f- ap pe llant h ad

f ai le d to enum er at e any

ne wgr ound s f

or r ec onsi de ratio n r equir ed by the f ed er al r ule s. I t di d no t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n m ak in g thi s d et erm in at io n. Se e Ca va lie re , 996 F. 2d at 1115 . T he j udgm ent of

the dis tr ic t c ourt i s AFFIRMED.