Phillip Neely appeals the denial of his motion to vacate an order that imposed sanctions against his attorney, Michael King. Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Neely’s motion. Neely *480 argues that he and King were denied due process, but King was given notice of the charge of misconduct and defended that misconduct in his objection to a recommendation to grant the motion to impose sanctions. See Attwood v. Singletary, 105 F.3d 610, 613 (11th Cir. 1997). Neely also argues that the sanctions are excessive, but he failed to object to the amount requested by the City or the finding that the amount was reasonable. Neely’s objection “comes too late.” Stuart I. Levin & Assocs., P.A. v. Rogers, 156 F.3d 1135, 1142 (11th Cir. 1998).

We AFFIRM the denial of Neely’s motion to vacate.