Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-22-13127/USCOURTS-ca11-22-13127-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 

---

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-13127

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

MARCUS JOHNSON, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

BOTTLING GROUP, LLC, 

Defendant-Appellee.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 8:21-cv-01135-JSM-TGW

____________________

USCA11 Case: 22-13127 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 03/01/2024 Page: 1 of 4
2 Opinion of the Court 22-13127

Before ROSENBAUM, GRANT, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Marcus Johnson, proceeding pro se, appeals the district 

court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Bottling 

Group, LLC in his action for race discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et 

seq., and the Florida Civil Rights Act, Fla. Stat. § 760.01, et seq. Johnson argues that Bottling Group failed to protect him from disparate 

treatment and racially-targeted incidents and only gave him unreasonable options to continue employment, resulting in his constructive discharge. 

We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment 

de novo. Seamon v. Remington Arms Co., 813 F.3d 983, 987-88 (11th 

Cir. 2016). Summary judgment is warranted where the movant 

shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that 

the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 56(a). 

While pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard 

than pleadings drafted by attorneys and will be liberally construed, 

we may not “serve as de facto counsel for a party [or] rewrite an 

otherwise deficient pleading in order to sustain an action.” Campbell v. Air Jam. Ltd., 760 F.3d 1165, 1168-69 (11th Cir. 2014). “[I]ssues 

not briefed on appeal by a pro se litigant are deemed abandoned.” 

Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008). An appellant 

fails to adequately brief a claim when he does not “plainly and 

USCA11 Case: 22-13127 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 03/01/2024 Page: 2 of 4
22-13127 Opinion of the Court 3

prominently raise it,” such as by making only passing references to 

the court’s holding without advancing any arguments or citing any 

authorities to establish that they were error. Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 681 (11th Cir. 2014) (quotation marks 

omitted); but see D’Angelo v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., 422 F.3d 1220, 1226 

n.3 (11th Cir. 2005) (concluding that a pro se appellant had not abandoned an issue, even though the claim was inartfully raised in the 

opening brief, because the appellant asserted “at least twice in her 

initial brief that she suffered from a disability, which was the basis 

for her firing” and clarified in her reply brief that she did not intend 

to waive the claim). We may exercise our discretion to consider a 

forfeited issue if: “(1) the issue involves a pure question of law and 

refusal to consider it would result in a miscarriage of justice; (2) the 

party lacked an opportunity to raise the issue at the district court 

level; (3) the interest of substantial justice is at stake; (4) the proper 

resolution is beyond any doubt; or (5) the issue presents significant

questions of general impact or of great public concern.” United 

States v. Campbell, 26 F.4th 860, 873 (11th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 

143 S. Ct. 95 (2022).

Here, Johnson has abandoned any purported challenge to 

the district court’s grant of summary judgment. Even when construing his brief liberally, Johnson failed to challenge any of the five 

bases on which the district court granted summary judgment or 

identify any error whatsoever. See Air Jam. Ltd., 760 F.3d at 1168 

69. The only basis that Johnson proffers any argument for is his 

allegation that he was in fact constructively discharged; but, fatally, 

Johnson does not challenge the district court’s finding that he 

USCA11 Case: 22-13127 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 03/01/2024 Page: 3 of 4
4 Opinion of the Court 22-13127

forfeited constructive discharge by raising it for the first time in response to Bottling Group’s motion for summary judgment. Rather 

than argue that any of the other bases were improperly found, 

Johnson simply repeats his theory of the case—without legal or record citation—and argues—again without citation—that he was 

wronged by Bottling Group, without mentioning the specific 

grounds for the district court’s ruling he purports to challenge, 

aside from the issue of constructive discharge which the court concluded was forfeited. Thus, Johnson has abandoned any challenge 

to the district court’s grant of summary judgment. See Timson, 518 

F.3d at 874; Sapuppo, 739 F.3d at 681.

This Court may exercise its discretion to consider forfeited 

issues, as identified in Campbell, but the exceptions named in that 

case do not apply to Johnson’s appeal. See Campbell, 26 F.4th at 873. 

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 22-13127 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 03/01/2024 Page: 4 of 4