Clements v. 3M Electronic Monitoring, 2:16-cv-00776

Pro se plaintiff Louis Matthew Clements filed suit against 3M Electronic Monitoring; the court dismissed the case with prejudice on June 29, 2017 as time‑barred.
Clements filed a document (Doc. 34) construed as both a Notice of Appeal to the Eleventh Circuit and a Rule 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the dismissal; the Eleventh Circuit stayed the appeal pending resolution of the Rule 60(b) motion.
The district court explained that it retains jurisdiction to consider or deny a Rule 60(b) motion filed after a notice of appeal but cannot grant it absent a remand from the court of appeals.
Clements sought reconsideration under Rule 60(b) and recusal of the judge under 28 U.S.C. § 455.
The court reviewed the motion, found no new evidence, change in controlling law, or clear error warranting reconsideration, and found no reasonable basis to question the judge’s impartiality.
The court denied both the motion for reconsideration and the recusal request, and directed the clerk to transmit the order to the Eleventh Circuit.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Rule 60(b) motion merits reopening the time‑bar dismissal	Clements argued the dismissal should be reconsidered (no new specifics presented)	Court previously dismissed as time‑barred; no new law/evidence shown	Denied — no new evidence, intervening law, or clear error shown
Whether the judge must recuse under 28 U.S.C. § 455	Clements asserted grounds to disqualify the judge	Court observed no objective basis a reasonable observer would question impartiality	Denied — adverse rulings do not establish bias; impartiality not reasonably questioned

Mahone v. Ray, 326 F.3d 1176 (11th Cir. 2003) (district court may consider or deny a Rule 60(b) motion after a notice of appeal but may not grant it without remand)
Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56 (U.S. 1982) (filing a notice of appeal generally divests district court of jurisdiction over issues on appeal)
Lairsey v. Advance Abrasives Co., 542 F.2d 928 (5th Cir. 1976) (district court may act in furtherance of an appeal)
In re Evergreen Securities, Ltd., 570 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2009) (§ 455(a) recusal inquiry uses objective reasonable‑observer standard)
In re Walker, 532 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2008) (adverse rulings are rarely grounds for recusal)
Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (U.S. 1994) (bias must be shown by more than judicial rulings to warrant recusal)
Whitehurst v. Wright, 592 F.2d 834 (5th Cir. 1979) (reasonable‑person standard for recusal)
Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (pre‑1981 Fifth Circuit decisions adopted as Eleventh Circuit precedent)