[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
_______________________
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-12801 May 18, 2005
_______________________ THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 03-00158 CV-AAA-2
PAUL LIR ALEXANDER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
HARPERCOLLINS PUBLISHERS, INC.,
BERNARD B. KERIK,
Defendants-Appellees.
NEWS CORPORATION,
K. RUPERT MURDOCK, et al.,
Defendants.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
_____________________
(May 18, 2005)
Before EDMONDSON, Chief Judge, TJOFLAT and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff-Appellant Alexander filed suit against Defendants-Appellees Kerik
and HaperCollins alleging, among other things, invasion of privacy and
negligence. The Southern District of Georgia granted summary judgment against
Alexander. We affirm.1
The district court also denied Alexander’s motion to amend the judgment
under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. We review denials of
Rule 59(e) motions for an abuse of discretion. O’Neal v. Kennamer, 958 F.2d
1044, 1047 (11th Cir. 1992). We acknowledge that Alexander’s counsel appeared
only shortly before Defendants-Appellees filed their motion for summary
judgment. But, Alexander’s counsel never requested the district court for more
time to respond to the motions. Accordingly, we cannot say that the district court
abused its discretion in denying the Rule 59(e) motion.
In all matters before this Court, therefore, the district court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
1
The district court decided that the First Amendment shielded Kerik and HarperCollins from
liability.
2