] is a final judgment....”). 4 . 10 James Wm. Moore et al„ Moore’s Federal Practice — Civil § 54.28[3][c] (3d ed.2014) (citation omitted); see also Dickinson v. Auto Ctr. Mfg. Co., 733 F.2d 1092, 1102 (5th Cir.1983) (“Under the final judgment appealability rule, a party may obtain review of prejudicial adverse interlocutory rulings upon his appeal from adverse final judgment, at which time the interlocutory rulings (nonreviewable until then) are regarded as merged into the final judgment terminating the action."). 5 . See, e.g., Am. Family Life Assurance Co. of Columbus v. Biles, 714 F.3d 887, 893-94 (5th Cir.2013) (reviewing on appeal of Rule 54(b) judgment the district court’s order limiting discovery). 6 . See Stephenson v. Calpine Conifers II, Ltd., 652 F.2d 808, 811 (9th Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>), oveiruled on other grounds, Puchall v.
holding in a case where the plaintiff had argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction to amend its judgment more than ten days after entry because that is the time limit under federal rule of civil procedure 59 that a district court can amend its judgment because of mistake or inadvertence months after judgment has been entered pursuant to rule 60b of the federal rules of civil procedure holding that the standard of review under rule 60 is abuse of discretion holding that entry of final judgment on a claim in a multiparty action pursuant to rule 54b should clearly articulate the reasons and factors underlying the decision to grant 54b certification holding that it had jurisdiction to review denial of motions under rules 59 and 60 that were filed and denied after the entry of judgment under rule 54b holding that district court has limited authority under rule 59 to alter or amend judgment sua sponte so long as court acts within 10 days of entry of judgment