Koon, et al v. Robinson Property

*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under
the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
November 20, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
No. 03-60302
Summary Calendar
CAROLYN KOON and ROCKY KOON,
Individually and as Husband and Wife;
Plaintiffs-Appellants
VERSUS
ROBINSON PROPERTY GROUP LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, d/b/a HORSESHOE
CASINO AND HOTEL, a/k/a JACK BINION’S HORSESHOE CASINO
Defendant-Appellee
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
Delta Division
(01-CV-162)
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
In this slip and fall case, the district court granted
defendant’s motion for summary judgment based primarily on facts
deemed admitted by plaintiff when plaintiff failed to timely
respond to requests for admission. The plaintiff filed a motion

-- 1 of 2 --

2
for post judgment relief under Rule 60(b), which the district court
denied. Plaintiff prosecutes this appeal to challenge that denial
of Rule 60(b) relief.
“The decision to grant or deny 60(b) relief lies in the sound
discretion of the district court and will be reversed only for an
abuse of that discretion.” New Hampshire Ins. Co. v. Martech USA,
Inc., 993 F.2d 1195, 1200 (5th Cir. 1993). The district court
properly granted summary judgment after it found that the
plaintiffs’ tardy response to defendant’s request for admissions
left no material issues of fact in the case. See In re Carney, 258
F.3d 415, 419-21 (5th Cir. 2001). In their 60(b) motion, plaintiffs
argued that their lawyer mistakenly failed, in the response to the
motion for summary judgment, to explain the reasons for the
untimely response to the request for admissions. Such neglect does
not necessitate relief from the judgment, see, e.g. Edward H.
Bohlin Co. v. Banning Co., 6 F.3d 350, 357 (5th Cir. 1993). The
district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --