United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division
OPINION AND ORDER 
SHERIPOLSTER CHAPPELL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff pro se
Louis Matthew Clements' Appeal of Order to Dismiss and
Motion to Recuse (Doc. 34) filed on July 6, 2017, which the
Court construes as a Motion for Reconsideration under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) of this Court's June 29,
2017 Opinion and Order dismissing this case with prejudice as
time-barred. (Doc. 32). This filing was initially construed
by the Court as a Notice of Appeal to the Eleventh Circuit,
and docketed as such (Doc. 34). See Clements v. 3M
Monitoring, USCA Number 17-13039-D. It was brought to
the Court's attention that the Eleventh Circuit stayed
the effectiveness of the Notice of Appeal pending this
Court's resolution of the Motion for Reconsideration.
See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4).
a general matter, the filing of a notice of appeal deprives
the district court of jurisdiction over all issues involved
in the appeal.” Mahone v. Ray, 326 F.3d 1176,
1179 (11th Cir. 2003) (citing Griggs v. Provident
Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982)). The filing
of a notice of appeal does not, however, “prevent the
district court from taking action ‘in furtherance of
the appeal, '” id. (quoting Lairsey v.
Advance Abrasives Co., 542 F.2d 928, 930 (5th Cir.
1976)), nor from “entertaining motions on matters
collateral to those at issue on appeal, ” id.
(citation omitted). Even after the filing of a notice of
appeal, district courts retain jurisdiction to entertain or
deny a Rule 60(b) motion because the court's action is in
furtherance of the appeal. Id. at 1180 (citation
omitted). The jurisdiction is limited to denying the Rule
60(b) motion and “following the filing of a notice of
appeal district courts do not possess jurisdiction to grant a
Rule 60(b) motion.” Id.
Accordingly, a district court presented with a Rule 60(b)
motion after a notice of appeal has been filed should
consider the motion and assess its merits. It may then deny
the motion or indicate its belief that the arguments raised
are meritorious. If the district court selects the latter
course, the movant may then petition the court of appeals to
remand the matter so as to confer jurisdiction on the
district court to grant the motion.
because Plaintiff has filed his Motion for Reconsideration
pursuant to Rule 60(b), this Court has jurisdiction to
entertain and deny the Motion or indicate its belief the
arguments are meritorious.
decision to grant a motion for reconsideration is within the
sound discretion of the trial court and will only be granted
to correct an abuse of discretion. Region 8 Forest Serv.
Timber Purchasers Council v. Alcock, 993 F.2d 800, 806
(11th Cir. 1993). “The courts have delineated three
major grounds justifying reconsideration of such a decision:
intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability
of new evidence; (3) the need to correct clear error or
prevent manifest injustice.” Sussman v. Salem,
Saxon & Nielsen, P.A., 153 F.R.D. 689, 694 (M.D.
Fla. 1994). Furthermore, a motion for reconsideration does
not provide an opportunity to simply reargue, or argue for
the first time, an issue the Court has already determined.
Court opinions are “not intended as mere first drafts,
subject to revision and reconsideration at a litigant's
pleasure.” Quaker Alloy Casting Co. v. Gulfco
Indus., Inc., 123 F.R.D. 282, 288 (N.D. Ill. 1988). The
reconsideration of a previous order is an
“extraordinary remedy” and “must set forth
facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the
court to reverse its prior decision.” Ludwig v.
Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co., Case No.
8:03-cv-2378-T-17-MAP, 2005 WL 1053691 at *3 (M.D. Fla. Mar.
Court has reviewed Plaintiff's Motion and determines that
it is without merit. Plaintiff does not identify new
evidence, point to a change in controlling law or material
facts, or show that reconsideration is needed to correct
clear error or prevent manifest injustice.
request to disqualify is based on 28 U.S.C. § 455. Under
(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United
States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which