Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-15-10519/USCOURTS-ca11-15-10519-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Willie Bennett
Appellant
CitiMortgage, Inc.
Appellee
Secretary of Veterans Affairs
Appellee
Vendor Resource Management
Appellee

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-10519

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:14-cv-02752-RWS

WILLIE BENNETT, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CITIMORTGAGE, INC.,

SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, 

VENDOR RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, 

 Defendants - Appellees.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

________________________

(November 16, 2015)

Before JORDAN, JULIE CARNES and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

USCA11 Case: 15-10519 Date Filed: 11/16/2015 Page: 1 of 3
2

Willie Bennett,

1 proceeding in forma pauperis, appeals the district court’s 

dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) of his amended complaint for failure to 

state a claim and for suing an immune defendant. Bennett argues that the district 

court (1) erred in concluding that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs (VA) is 

immune because Bennett brings this claim as a Bivens action2 and (2) erred in 

concluding that CitiMortgage, Inc. (Citi) and Vendor Resource Management

(VRM) were not government actors because they acted as authorized agents of the 

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). After review,3 we affirm.

Neither the amended complaint nor Bennett’s objections to the magistrate 

judge’s report and recommendation mention Bivens or state that Citi was an agent 

of the VA. Because Bennett failed to raise these arguments before the district 

court, we decline to address them for the first time on appeal. See Access Now, 

Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1331 (11th Cir. 2004) (quotations omitted) 

(“This Court has repeatedly held that an issue not raised in the district court and 

raised for the first time in an appeal will not be considered by this court.”).

 1 We note that Bennett was represented by counsel in the district court and on appeal.

2 See Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 

(1971).

3 We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim, Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 

1483, 1490 (11th Cir. 1997), and for sovereign immunity, Maughon v. Bibb Cty., 160 F.3d 658, 

660 (11th Cir. 1998). We accept as true all allegations of fact in the amended complaint. 

Mitchell, 112 F.3d at 1490.

USCA11 Case: 15-10519 Date Filed: 11/16/2015 Page: 2 of 3
3

Bennett’s argument that VRM is a government actor fails to respond to the 

basis for the district court’s dismissal. The magistrate judge’s report and 

recommendation, which the district court adopted, assumed arguendo that VRM

was a government actor and nevertheless concluded that Bennett failed to state a 

claim on which relief could be granted. Because Bennett fails to challenge the

basis for the district court’s conclusion, he has abandoned any claim that the 

district court erred in this regard. See Hamilton v. Southland Christian Sch., Inc., 

680 F.3d 1316, 1319 (11th Cir. 2012) (“A passing reference to an issue in a brief is 

not enough, and the failure to make arguments and cite authorities in support of an 

issue waives it.”).

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 15-10519 Date Filed: 11/16/2015 Page: 3 of 3