Plaintiff Rudy Candelaria appearing pro se appeals the district court's denial of his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(3) motion. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291 and affirm.

On November 21, 1989, Plaintiff filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C.1983 alleging his due process rights were violated when he was transferred to a maximum security facility without a hearing, and that he was unlawfully deprived of good time credits for time spent in administrative segregation and earnings from prison employment. On June 22, 1993, the district court ordered the preparation of a Martinez report and advised the parties that the report would be used for summary judgment purposes.

On October 22, 1993, Defendants filed a "Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative for Summary Judgment" along with the court-ordered Martinez report. In the report, Corrections Officer Virgil Garcia stated that Plaintiff had received good time credits for time spent in administrative segregation. On November 5, 1993, Plaintiff filed a response to the report conceding that he had in fact received the good time credits in dispute. Thereafter, the district court granted the Defendant's motion for summary judgment.

On September 29, 1994, Plaintiff filed a motion pursuant to Rule 60(b)(3) alleging that Officer Garcia's affidavit in support of the Martinez report was false. On October 27, 1994, the district court denied the motion noting that "Plaintiff did not controvert the affidavit in question when he made the response to the Martinez Report." This appeal followed.

On appeal, Plaintiff claims the district court erred by denying his Rule 60(b)(3) motion. We review the district court's denial of a Rule 60(b)(3) motion for an abuse of discretion. Massengale v. Oklahoma Bd. of Examiners in Optometry, 30 F.3d 1325, 1330 (10th Cir.1994). "Rule 60(b) relief is only appropriate under extraordinary circumstances." Id. (citing Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 863-64 (1988)).

Rule 60(b)(3) provides that a district court may vacate a judgment for "fraud ... misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party." Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(3). In order to obtain relief under Rule 60(b)(3), a litigant must prove an adverse party committed fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by clear and convincing evidence. Anderson v. Dept. of Health and Human Servs., 907 F.2d 936, 952 (10th Cir.1990).

In the instant case, Plaintiff's conclusory allegation that Officer Garcia submitted a false affidavit to the district court did not constitute clear and convincing evidence of fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct. Moreover, Plaintiff conceded the facts contained in the affidavit were true in his response to the Martinez report. Under these circumstances, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Plaintiff's Rule 60(b)(3) motion.

AFFIRMED.