Case Name: Marie FLAHERTY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jason FILARDI, George Tobia, Jr., Burns and Levinson, LLP, Hyde Park Entertainment, Ashok Amritraj, David Hoberman, Todd Lieberman, Walt Disney Company, Buena Vista Motion Pictures Group, Touchstone Pictures, Bungalow 78 Productions, Kushner-Locke Company, Meepierson Film CV, WMG Film, Jane Bartelme, Cookie Carosella, Dana Owens, DBA Queen Latifah, Does, 1-10, 7th Calvary Productions, Inc., Big House Productions, Inc., Peter Filardi, Writer's Guild of America, West, Walt Disney Enterprises, Inc., Does, 6-10, inclusive, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-02-28
Citations: 460 F. App'x 66
Docket Number: No. 10-4873-cv
Parties: Marie FLAHERTY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jason FILARDI, George Tobia, Jr., Burns and Levinson, LLP, Hyde Park Entertainment, Ashok Amritraj, David Hoberman, Todd Lieberman, Walt Disney Company, Buena Vista Motion Pictures Group, Touchstone Pictures, Bungalow 78 Productions, Kushner-Locke Company, Meepierson Film CV, WMG Film, Jane Bartelme, Cookie Carosella, Dana Owens, DBA Queen Latifah, Does, 1-10, 7th Calvary Productions, Inc., Big House Productions, Inc., Peter Filardi, Writer’s Guild of America, West, Walt Disney Enterprises, Inc., Does, 6-10, inclusive, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: PRESENT: ROBERTA. KATZMANN, DENNY CHIN, and SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 460
Pages: 66–67

Head Matter:
Marie FLAHERTY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jason FILARDI, George Tobia, Jr., Burns and Levinson, LLP, Hyde Park Entertainment, Ashok Amritraj, David Hoberman, Todd Lieberman, Walt Disney Company, Buena Vista Motion Pictures Group, Touchstone Pictures, Bungalow 78 Productions, Kushner-Locke Company, Meepierson Film CV, WMG Film, Jane Bartelme, Cookie Carosella, Dana Owens, DBA Queen Latifah, Does, 1-10, 7th Calvary Productions, Inc., Big House Productions, Inc., Peter Filardi, Writer’s Guild of America, West, Walt Disney Enterprises, Inc., Does, 6-10, inclusive, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 10-4873-cv.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Feb. 28, 2012.
Marie Flaherty, pro se, New York, N.Y., for Appellant.
Jeffrey A. Conciatori, Jonathan Oblak, Hilary Ritter Ormond, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, New York, N.Y.; Robert J. Muldoon, Jr.; Peter Herzog, Margaret H. Paget, Sherin and Lodgen LLP, Boston, M.A., for Appellees.
PRESENT: ROBERTA. KATZMANN, DENNY CHIN, and SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Marie Flaherty ("Flaherty"), pro se, appeals from final judgments of the Southern District of New York (Swain, J.) entered pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d), as well as the district court's orders denying her motion to vacate those judgments and her motion for an order to show cause why, inter alia, the magistrate judge should not be recused from the case. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts and the procedural history of the case.
We review judgments of costs entered pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) for abuse of discretion. See In re Air Crash Disaster, 687 F.2d 626, 629 (2d Cir.1982). After having reviewed Flaherty's arguments and the proceedings below, we find no abuse of discretion in the district court's award of certain costs incurred by defendants in the course of this litigation. The district court's denial of Flaherty's motion to vacate or stay those judgments of costs was likewise proper.
Flaherty also challenges the district court's denial of her Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) motion for an order to show cause why, inter alia, the magistrate judge should not be recused from the case. We review a district court's denial of a motion brought pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6) for abuse of discretion. See Matarese v. LeFevre, 801 F.2d 98, 106-07 (2d Cir.1986). After having reviewed Flaherty's contentions on appeal and the proceedings below, we find no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of this motion. In addition, even assuming arguendo, as Flaherty asserts, that her motion was filed pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4) and, hence, that we should review the district court's order de novo, our conclusion that the district court properly denied the motion does not change.
Finally, to the extent Flaherty now seeks to appeal judgments or orders of the district court that were appropriately the subject of her previous appeals in this Court, we decline to consider those arguments as they are now waived pursuant to the law of the case doctrine. See, e.g., United States v. Quintieri, 306 F.3d 1217, 1229 (2d Cir.2002); United States v. Tenzer, 213 F.3d 34, 39 (2d Cir.2000).
We have considered all of Flaherty's arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, the challenged judgments and orders of the district court are AFFIRMED.
. In line with the district court's October 20, 2010 order, we direct that Flaherty seek and obtain the district court's leave to make any further filings in that court.