[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 13

- 15369 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 4:13

- cv - 01674

- VEH

SHERYL HARVEY , P laintiff

- App ellant ,
versus STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY , Defendant

- Appell ee .

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama

________________________ (May 20, 2014) Before TJOFLAT , PRYOR and KRAVITCH , Circuit Judges. PER CU RIAM: Sheryl Harvey appeals the dismissal of her second complaint against the Standard Insurance Company to recover long term disability benefits under her

Case: 13-15369 Date Filed: 05/20/2014 Page: 1 of 32 employer’s group policy as governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. We affirm. In 2010, Harvey filed in a n Alabama court a complaint seeking a judicial award of long term benefits from Standard

. See id

. § 1132. Standard removed the action to the district court , a fter which Standard and Harvey moved for summary judgment

. T he district court denied Harvey’s motion and granted the motion of Standard . The district court rul ed , relevant to this appeal , that a n extra

- contractual appeal undertaken voluntarily by S t andard , which Harvey halted by fil ing he r civil action , did not change the standard of review from arbitrary and capricious to de

novo . Harvey v. Standard Ins. Co. , 850 F. Supp. 2d 1269 , 1278

– 81 ( N.D. Ala.
2012 )

. W e affirmed

. Harvey v. Standard Ins. Co. , 503 Fed. App’x 845 (11th Cir.
2013 )

. In September 2013, Harvey filed a second complaint against Standard in a n Alabama court, which Standard also removed to the district court. Harvey again sought a judicial award of long term benefits, see 2 9 U.S.C. § 1132, on the ground that she was entitl ed to consideration of evidence submitted to Standard after it agreed to undertake the extra

- contractual appeal

. Standard moved to dismiss the complaint as barred by the three

- year period of limitation provided in Harvey’s policy , res judicata , and collateral estoppel.

Case: 13-15369 Date Filed: 05/20/2014 Page: 2 of 33 The district court dismissed Harvey’s complaint as untimely . The district court ruled that the limitation period in the policy commenced , at the latest, on October 27, 2009, when Standard denied Harvey’s claim for benefits , and t hen ran uninterrupted for more than three years , until August 8, 2013, when Harvey filed her second complaint. The district court declined to consider as “wholly undeveloped and without support” Harvey’s two

- sentence argument that “[t]he statute of limita tions is not a bar” and “began to run on 7/15/13 when Standard refused to issue a decision on the [ extra

- contractual ] appeal.” The district court saw “no need to explore” t he alternative defenses raised by Standard. The district court did not err by dismissing Harvey’s second complaint. Harvey argues, for the first time, that her complaint is timely because he r extra

contractual appeal tolled the limitation period , s ee 29 C.F.R. § 2560.503

- 1(c)(3)(ii), but we decline to consider an argument that Harv ey failed to raise in the district court, see Slater v. Energy Servs. Group Int’l., Inc. , 634 F.3d 1326 , 1332 ( 11 th Cir

. 2011 ) , and that she fails to discuss substantively in her brief, see Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A)

. And Harvey has abandoned her argument that the limitation period commenced running on the date Standard refused to issue its decision

. See Hamilton v. Southland Christian Sch., Inc. , 680 F.3d 1316, 1318 (11th Cir. 2012).
We AFFIRM the dismissal of Harvey’s complaint. Case: 13-15369 Date Filed: 05/20/2014 Page: 3 of 3