Case: 19-13467 Date Filed: 07/31/2020 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 19-13467
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:14-cv-61019-FAM
GARRY COLEMAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT
OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, et al.,
Defendants,
DR. JOHANNA GUERRERO,
RITA WATSON,
DAVID WILKINS,
Defendants - Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(July 31, 2020)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, BRANCH and LUCK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 19-13467 Date Filed: 07/31/2020 Page: 2 of 3
Garry Coleman appeals pro se the denial of his motion to set aside a final
judgment entered against his complaint that the defendants violated his civil rights.
42 U.S.C. § 1983. He argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying
his motion to set aside, Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1), its earlier summary judgment
against him because it failed to consider his own cross-motion for summary
judgment. We affirm.
We review the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion for an abuse of discretion.
Bender v. Mazda Motor Corp.,
657 F.3d 1200, 1202 (11th Cir. 2011). The
harmless error rule instructs courts to “disregard all errors and defects that do not
affect any party’s substantial rights.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 61; see also Parrott v. Wilson,
707 F.2d 1262, 1266 n.8 (11th Cir. 1983). Under Rule 60(b)(1), a court may
relieve a party of a final order or judgment because of “mistake, inadvertence,
surprise, or excusable neglect.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1).
The standard of review for a summary judgment—that is, de novo—remains
the same regardless of the filing of a cross-motion. See Gerling Global
Reinsurance Corp. of Am. v. Gallagher,
267 F.3d 1228, 1233 (11th Cir. 2001).
Summary judgment is appropriate where there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Id.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Coleman’s motion.
We earlier sua sponte dismissed as frivolous Coleman’s appeal of the summary
2
Case: 19-13467 Date Filed: 07/31/2020 Page: 3 of 3
judgment against him. As a matter of law, the summary judgment in favor of the
defendants necessarily meant that Coleman was not entitled to summary judgment
in his favor.
AFFIRMED.
3
