Neely v. City of Riverdale

Eleventh Circuit

Neely v. City of Riverdale

400 F. App'x 479

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedOctober 15, 2010

Docket10-12437

StatusUnpublished

This text of 400 F. App'x 479 (Neely v. City of Riverdale) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Neely v. City of Riverdale, 400 F. App'x 479 (11th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Phillip Neely appeals the denial of his motion to vacate an order that imposed sanctions against his attorney, Michael King. Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Neely’s motion. Neely *480 argues that he and King were denied due process, but King was given notice of the charge of misconduct and defended that misconduct in his objection to a recommendation to grant the motion to impose sanctions. See Attwood v. Singletary, 105 F.3d 610, 613 (11th Cir.1997). Neely also argues that the sanctions are excessive, but he failed to object to the amount requested by the City or the finding that the amount was reasonable. Neely’s objection “comes too late.” Stuart I. Levin & Assocs., P.A. v. Rogers, 156 F.3d 1135, 1142 (11th Cir.1998).

We AFFIRM the denial of Neely’s motion to vacate.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Phillip Neely appeals the denial of his motion to vacate an order that imposed sanctions against his attorney, Michael King. Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Neely’s motion. Neely *480 argues that he and King were denied due process, but King was given notice of the charge of misconduct and defended that misconduct in his objection to a recommendation to grant the motion to impose sanctions. See Attwood v. Singletary, 105 F.3d 610, 613 (11th Cir.1997). Neely also argues that the sanctions are excessive, but he failed to object to the amount requested by the City or the finding that the amount was reasonable. Neely’s objection “comes too late.” Stuart I. Levin & Assocs., P.A. v. Rogers, 156 F.3d 1135, 1142 (11th Cir.1998).

We AFFIRM the denial of Neely’s motion to vacate.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

400 F. App'x 479, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/neely-v-city-of-riverdale-ca11-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack