Case Name: Paul Lir ALEXANDER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HARPERCOLLINS PUBLISHERS, INC., Bernard B. Kerik, Defendants-Appellees. News Corporation, K. Rupert Murdock, et al., Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-05-18
Citations: 132 F. App'x 250
Docket Number: No. 04-12801; D.C. Docket No. 03-00158 CV-AAA-2
Parties: Paul Lir ALEXANDER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HARPERCOLLINS PUBLISHERS, INC., Bernard B. Kerik, Defendants-Appellees. News Corporation, K. Rupert Murdock, et al., Defendants.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 132
Pages: 250–251

Head Matter:
Paul Lir ALEXANDER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HARPERCOLLINS PUBLISHERS, INC., Bernard B. Kerik, Defendants-Appellees. News Corporation, K. Rupert Murdock, et al., Defendants.
No. 04-12801.
D.C. Docket No. 03-00158 CV-AAA-2.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
May 18, 2005.
Andrew McCanse Wright, Jackson Kelly PLLC, Morgantown, WV, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Katherine M. Bolger, Slade R. Metcalf, Hogan & Hartson L.L.P., New York, NY, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before EDMONDSON, Chief Judge, TJOFLAT and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff-Appellant Alexander filed suit against Defendants-Appellees Kerik and HaperCollins alleging, among other things, invasion of privacy and negligence. The Southern District of Georgia granted summary judgment against Alexander. We affirm.
The district court also denied Alexander's motion to amend the judgment under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. We review denials of Rule 59(e) motions for an abuse of discretion. O'Neal v. Kennamer, 958 F.2d 1044, 1047 (11th Cir.1992). We acknowledge that Alexander's counsel appeared only shortly before Defendants-Appellees filed their motion for summary judgment. But, Alexander's counsel never requested the district court for more time to respond to the motions. Accordingly, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in denying the Rule 59(e) motion.
In all matters before this Court, therefore, the district court is affirmed. AFFIRMED.
. The district court decided that the First Amendment shielded Kerik and HarperCollins from liability.