|GARY T. BETZLE,||No. 01-8014|
For substantially the reasons stated by the district court, we AFFIRM. Betzle argues on appeal that he should be allowed to amend his complaint to clarify his arguments. He did not set forth in his Rule 60(b) motion below or in his appellate brief any additional facts or argument that would call the district court's decision into question, however. Thus, it was at most harmless error to deny him an opportunity to amend. See Curley v. Perry, 246 F.3d 1278, 1284 (10th Cir. 2001) ("[L]ack of prior notice of a sua sponte dismissal with prejudice for failure to state a claim is harmless when, as here, the plaintiff has a reasonable post-judgment opportunity to present his arguments to the district court and the appellate court, including the opportunity to suggest amendments that would cure the complaint's deficiencies.").
Betzle is reminded of his obligation to continue making partial payments until the full amount of his filing fee is paid.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
David M. Ebel
*.After examining appellant's brief and the appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This Order and Judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.