Continental Ins. Co. v. Chatham Co., GA , 144 F. App'x 99 ( 2005 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-13018 September 20, 2005
Non-Argument Calendar THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 03-00038-CV-4
DENNIS K. RINGS,
CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
Subrogated to the rights of Dennis K. Rings,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
CHATHAM COUNTY, GA,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
(September 20, 2005)
Before TJOFLAT, ANDERSON and CARNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
In Continental Ins. Co. v. Chatham County, Ga., 112 Fed.Appx. 3 (Table)
(11th Cir. 2004) (unpublished), reh’g denied, 122 Fed.Appx. 988 (Table) (11th
Cir. 2004), we affirmed the district court’s decision granting Chatham County
summary judgment based on the doctrine of residual common law sovereign
immunity. Continental thereafter moved the district court under Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b)(1) and (6) to vacate its judgment. The gist of its argument for vacation is
that the district court, and thus this court, erred in granting the County sovereign
immunity as they did. In other words, Continental wanted a second bite at the
appeal.
The district court denied Continental’s motion, stating:
[Continental’s] arguments were rejected on direct appeal. . . . They
therefore cannot be relitigated under Rule 60(b) absent some
extraordinary circumstance, which does not exist here. See Carter v.
Dolce, 741 F.2d 758, 760 (5th Cir. 1984) (Rule 60(b) “may not be
used merely to relitigate settled issues”); Nemaizer v. Baker, 793 F.2d
58, 63 (2d Cir. 1986) (Rule 60(b)(6) requires extraordinary
circumstances justifying relief from extreme and undue hardship);
Schiavo ex rel. Schindler v. Schiavo, ___ F.3d ____, 2005 WL
681652 at *1 (11th Cir. 3/25/05) (the law-of-the-case doctrine
precludes courts from revisiting issues decided explicitly or by
necessary implication in a prior appeal).
Continental now appeals. We affirm. Given the above precedent it relied
upon, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in denying
Continental’s motion.
AFFIRMED.
2