United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted June 15, 2016*

Decided June 15, 2016

Before

DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge

RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge

No. 16-1497

JAMES A. MUDD,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

ALLEN COUNTY WAR 

MEMORIAL COLISEUM,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Northern District of Indiana, 

Fort Wayne Division.

No. 1:10-CV-52

William C. Lee,

Judge.

O R D E R

James Mudd appeals from the denial of what he calls a “Motion for Clarification 

and Correct Errors.” This submission relates to Mudd’s unsuccessful effort nearly five 

years earlier to reopen a claim of employment discrimination that had ended in a 

settlement. We affirm the district court’s ruling.

 

* After examining the briefs and record, we have concluded that oral argument is 

unnecessary. Thus the appeal is submitted on the briefs and record. See FED. R. APP.

P. 34(a)(2)(C).

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 16-1497 Page 2

Mudd worked at the War Memorial Coliseum in Fort Wayne, Indiana. In 2010 he 

sued the Coliseum’s board of trustees claiming employment discrimination, but the 

parties settled before the close of discovery, and the district court granted a joint motion 

to dismiss with prejudice. Ten months later, in May 2011, Mudd moved under Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) to reopen the suit because, he asserted, the defendant had 

fraudulently withheld an e-mail written by the assistant operations manager opining

that Mudd had been treated unfairly by his immediate supervisor. This e-mail, Mudd 

argued, should have been disclosed during discovery. The district court denied this 

motion, and we dismissed Mudd’s appeal from that decision for nonpayment of the 

appellate fees. Mudd’s current submission asks the district court to “clarify” whether 

the defendant had committed fraud by not disclosing the e-mail and also argues that 

the court should have granted his earlier motion. The district court understood the 

filing to be another Rule 60(b) motion and denied it because, the court reasoned, Mudd 

was rehashing the same issue presented years earlier. The court also warned Mudd 

against any more frivolous filings.

Rather than heed that advice, Mudd filed this frivolous appeal. His “Motion for 

Clarification and Correct Errors” was years too late to be a legitimate motion under 

Rule 60(b). See FED R. CIV. P. 60(c); Mendez v. Republic Bank, 725 F.3d 651, 657 (7th Cir. 

2013); Berwick Grain Co. v. Ill. Dep’t of Agric., 189 F.3d 556, 559–60 (7th Cir. 1999). Instead, 

as the district court recognized, Mudd simply was trying to engineer an untimely 

appeal from the denial of his May 2011 motion, which is not a proper use of Rule 60(b). 

See Banks v. Chi. Bd. of Educ., 750 F.3d 663, 667–68 (7th Cir. 2014); Gleash v. Yuswak,

308 F.3d 758, 761 (7th Cir. 2002); Bell v. Eastman Kodak Co., 214 F.3d 798, 801 (7th Cir.

2000).

We affirm the district court’s ruling and order Mudd to show cause within 

14 days why he should not be sanctioned under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38

for filing a frivolous appeal.