USCA11 Case: 23-10717   Document: 28-2    Date Filed: 08/09/2024   Page: 1 of 4




                                 In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                         ____________________

                              No. 23-10717
                         ____________________

       JAMES M. CUYLER,
                                                   Plaintiff-Appellant,
       versus
       SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,
       BAY PINES VA HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS,
       PAUL RUSSO,
       Director,
       ELAMIN M. ELAMIN,
       Chief of Staff,
       VIVIAN FASULA,
       Chief of Surgery, et al.,


                                                Defendants-Appellees.
USCA11 Case: 23-10717     Document: 28-2      Date Filed: 08/09/2024    Page: 2 of 4




       2                       Order of the Court                 23-10717

                            ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Middle District of Florida
                   D.C. Docket No. 8:22-cv-00263-WFJ-AEP
                           ____________________

       Before JORDAN, NEWSOM, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.
       BY THE COURT:
              James Cuyler, proceeding pro se, appeals from the Novem-
       ber 9, 2022 endorsed order dismissing his complaint with leave to
       amend, which became the final judgment once the deadline to
       amend expired, as well as several other orders entered after the No-
       vember 9 order. We remanded this case to the district court for
       the purposes of (1) determining whether Cuyler’s January 26, 2023
       motion to stay should be construed as a Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) mo-
       tion and, if yes, whether Cuyler was entitled to Rule 4(a)(5) relief;
       and (2) resolving two timely tolling motions.
              On remand, the district court concluded that Cuyler’s Janu-
       ary 26 motion was not a Rule 4(a)(5) motion and, alternatively, he
       was not entitled to Rule 4(a)(5) relief. It also denied Cuyler’s two
       timely tolling motions, but we do not address the denial of those
       motions in this order.
             We instructed the parties to file letter briefs concerning
       Cuyler’s challenges to the October 30, 2023 order on remand. After
       considering those letter briefs, we conclude that the district court
       did not abuse its discretion by denying Cuyler Rule 4(a)(5) relief.
USCA11 Case: 23-10717      Document: 28-2      Date Filed: 08/09/2024     Page: 3 of 4




       23-10717                 Order of the Court                          3

       Given that conclusion, we need not decide whether the district
       court abused its discretion by concluding that Cuyler’s January 26,
       2023 motion to stay was not a Rule 4(a)(5) motion.
               We review the denial of Rule 4(a)(5) relief for abuse of dis-
       cretion and will affirm unless the district court made a clear error
       of judgment, applied an incorrect legal standard, or rested its deci-
       sion on a clearly erroneous factual finding. Advanced Estimating
       Sys., Inc. v. Riney, 

, 997 (11th Cir. 1997); Weatherly
       v. Ala. State Univ., 

 (11th Cir. 2013). We can
       affirm for any reason supported by the record. Cordero
       v. Transamerica Annuity Serv. Corp., 

, 846 n.2 (11th Cir.
       2023).
              Rule 4(a)(5) allows a district court to extend the appeal pe-
       riod upon a motion filed not later than 30 days after the deadline
       expires if the movant demonstrates excusable neglect or good
       cause. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5); 

(c). To evaluate
       excusable neglect, courts look to the length of the delay, the reason
       for the delay, its possible effect on judicial proceedings, the risk of
       prejudice to the opposing party, and whether the movant acted in
       good faith. Advanced Estimating Sys., Inc., 130 F.3d at 997-98. A
       party’s mistaken understanding of the rules governing his appeal
       deadline does not establish good cause or excusable neglect. See id.
       at 998-99 (considering attorney’s mistake of law).
              The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying
       Rule 4(a)(5) relief because Cuyler’s arguments for that relief cen-
       tered on challenges to the district court’s decisions and his efforts
USCA11 Case: 23-10717     Document: 28-2      Date Filed: 08/09/2024    Page: 4 of 4




       4                       Order of the Court                 23-10717

       to obtain removal of the district judge. Those challenges are not
       connected to his ability or failure to timely appeal and, thus, could
       not establish good cause or excusable neglect. See Fed. R. App.
       P. 4(a)(5); 

(c). To the extent that Cuyler argues
       that the district court should have granted him Rule 4(a)(5) relief
       given confusion about when the appeal deadline expired, any such
       confusion could not establish good cause or excusable neglect. See
       Advanced Estimating Sys., Inc., 130 F.3d at 998-99.
              Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s October 30,
       2023 denial of Cuyler’s request for Rule 4(a)(5) relief. Furthermore,
       as we previously concluded, Cuyler’s notice of appeal is not timely
       as to the November 9, 2022 dismissal order, which became a final
       judgment once his deadline to amend his complaint expired. Thus,
       the appeal is DISMISSED IN PART as to the November 9 order
       and the final judgment because we lack jurisdiction to review that
       judgment. Cuyler’s appeal may proceed as to the district court’s
       endorsed orders entered on December 9, 2022, January 3, 2023, and
       January 31, 2023, and as to the court’s non-jurisdictional determi-
       nations in its October 30, 2023 order on remand.