UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ ERIC LEVANTER DEMILLARD, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. COLORADO STATE PATROL; COLORADO STATE CAPITOLBUILDING SERGEANT-AT-ARMSSECURITY FORCE, Defendants - Appellees. No. 24-1154 (D.C. No. 1:23- CV-00542-LTB) (D. Colo.)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

________________ _________________ Before PHILLIPS , BRISCOE , and CARSON , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________ Plaintiff Eric DeMillard, appearing pro se, appeals from the district court’s denial of his post-judgment motion for relie f. Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm th e district court’s decision.

* After examining the briefs and appella te record, this pa nel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not ma terially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctr ines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cite d, however, for its persuasi ve value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### August 21, 2024 Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court Appellate Case: 24-1154 Document: 010111098078 Date Filed: 08/21/2024 Page: 12 I Mr. DeMillard initiated these proceedi ngs by filing a pro se complaint against the Colorado State Patrol and the security force for the Colo rado State Capitol Building. The complaint alleged that on February 23, 2023, Mr. DeMillard was “threatened and intimidated and harass ed” by the defendants when he “slowly ambulated . . . to the Colorado State Capitol Building.” R. at 8. The complaint asked the district court to “properly imprison” the defendants and to award him damages. Id. at 6. The complaint also included additional pages that contained other vague and unintelligible allegations. The magistrate judge issued an order directing Mr. DeMilla rd to refile his complaint on a court-approved form a nd to either subm it a court-approved application for leave to proceed without pr epayment of fees and costs or pay the requisite filing fee. The magi strate judge advised Mr. DeM illard that if he failed to do so within thirty days, the action would be dismissed without prejudice. Mr. DeMillard timely filed an amende d complaint on a court-approved form. But he did not pay the requisi te filing fee or file a c ourt-approved application for leave to proceed without prep ayment of fees and costs. On September 15, 2023, the district court dismissed the action without prejudice due to Mr. DeMillard’s failure to comply with the magi strate judge’s order and for failure to prosecute the action. Final judgment was ente red the same day. On April 1, 2024, Mr. DeMillard filed a pro se motion asking the district court to “Legally Approve” a judgment against th e two named defendants in the amount of Appellate Case: 24-1154 Document: 010111098078 Date Filed: 08/21/2024 Page: 23 $160,000,000. R. at 124. The district court summarily denied that post-judgment motion on April 8, 2024. Mr. DeMillard filed a notice of appeal on April 16, 2024.
II We begin by noting that our appellate revi ew is limited to the district court’s April 8, 2024 order denying Mr. DeMillard’s post-judgment motion. Rule 4(a)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure generally provides that “[i]n a civil case, . . . the notice of appeal . . . must be filed with the distri ct clerk within 30 days after entry of the judgment or order appealed from.” Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). Because Mr. DeMillard did not file a notice of appeal until April 16, 2024, the only order that falls within the thirty -day window provided by Rule 4(a )(1)(A) is the district court’s April 8, 2024 order denying his post-judgment motion. We review the denial of a post-judg ment motion for abuse of discretion. Jennings v. Rivers , 394 F.3d 850, 854 (10th Cir. 2005) . This standard “includes review to determine that the discre tion was not guided by erroneous legal conclusions.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). We will reverse the district court’s determination “only if we find a complete absen ce of a reasonable basis and are certain that the district court’s decision is wrong.” Utah ex rel. Div. of Forestry, Fire & State Lands v. United States , 528 F.3d 712, 723 (10th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). Post-judgment motions may be filed under either Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Mr . DeMillard did not identify which of these Appellate Case: 24-1154 Document: 010111098078 Date Filed: 08/21/2024 Page: 34 rules he was seeking relief under. A motio n under Rule 59(e) seeks to “alter or amend a judgment” and “must be filed no la ter than 28 days after the entry of the judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Beca use Mr. DeMillard file d his motion well past 28 days after entry of the j udgment, he could not seek relief under Rule 59(e). That leaves Rule 60(b). Rule 60(b) provides that “the court may relieve a party . . . from a final judgment” for several e numerated reasons, including, as relevant here, “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable negl ect,” “fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misr epresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party,” “the judgment is void,” or “any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1), (3), (4), (6). After examining Mr. DeMillard’s appell ate brief and the record on appeal, we conclude that none of these bases existed for relieving Mr. DeMillard from the final judgment that was entered by th e district court. We ther efore conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in denyi ng Mr. DeMillard’s post-judgment motion.
III We affirm the district court’s orde r denying Mr. DeMillard’s post-judgment motion and deny Mr. DeMillard’s motion for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis.

Entered for the Court

Mary Beck Briscoe Circuit Judge Appellate Case: 24-1154 Document: 010111098078 Date Filed: 08/21/2024 Page: 4