Michael B. King v. City of Riverdale, et al

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
FEBRUARY 17, 2012
JOHN LEY
CLERK
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 11-14669
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:08-cv-02162-CC
MICHAEL B. KING,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Interested Party-Appellant,
versus
CITY OF RIVERDALE,
DERRY WALKER,
in his individual and official capacity as
code enforcement officer for the City of
Riverdale, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(February 17, 2012)
Before TJOFLAT, CARNES and WILSON, Circuit Judges.

-- 1 of 3 --

PER CURIAM:
In Ashford v. City of Riverdale, 389 F. App’x 980 (11 Cir. 2010), weth
affirmed the district court’s judgment imposing sanctions in the form of attorney’s
fees and costs against Michael King, an attorney, in the sum of $17,592, pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. After our mandate issued, the City of
Riverdale moved the district court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
60(a) to correct the judgment to reflect that it had been entered only against King
(and not jointly against King and his client). The district court granted the motion,
and the clerk entered an amended judgment on June 27, 2011. King thereafter
moved the court for reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
59(e). The court denied his motion on September 1, 2011. King, proceeding pro
se, now appeals the judgment and the order denying his motion for
reconsideration.
In his appellate brief, King does not argue that the district court erred in
denying his motion for reconsideration. He has therefore abandoned his appeal of
that ruling. In challenging the entry of the amended judgment pursuant to the
City’s Rule 60(a) motion, he argues that the court erred in several respects in
granting the motion. We do not consider those arguments, however, because, as
the City correctly points out in its answer brief, “King failed to oppose this
2

-- 2 of 3 --

motion.” Answer Br. at 10. Rather, he raised his arguments (that the court erred
in granting the motion) “for the first time in [his] motion for reconsideration.” Id.
at 10-11. In not opposing the City’s Rule 60(a) motion, King invited the errors he
now complains of. We therefore do not consider them.
AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --