FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MARCH 17, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 11 54 3 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 8- cv -0 21 16 -J TC SHELBY LAMPLEY, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pl ai nt iff - App el la nt , ve rs us IMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, d.b .a. Peac ht ree R oa d Hi gh ris e, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen da nt- App el le e.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e North ernDis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma rch 17 , 20 11 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, CARNES andKRAVITCH, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Sh el by Lam

pl ey , a m ai nt en an ce t ech ni ci anwith IM S Man ag em en t Se rv ic es(IM S), was fir edfro m hi s jo b t wo d ay s af

te r returni ng fro m

12 week s’ lea ve un de r th e Fam il y

an d M ed ic al Leav e Act(FMLA). Lam pl ey , pro ceed in g pr o s e , su ed IMS an d c on te nd edth athe was fi redbe cau se of h is race an d h is rel ig io n i n vi ol at io n o f Tit le VII of

th e Ci vi l Ri gh ts Act o f 19 64 . He als o a rg ue d tha t h e was ret al ia te d a ga in stfortak in g app ro ve d l eav e und er the FMLA an d t ha t h is em pl oyer ha d i nt erfe redwith t he ex erci se of h is st atut ory rig ht s und er the FMLA b y can cel li ng hi s h eal th in su ran ce wh il e h e was on lea ve . Last , Lam pl ey cla im edth at IMS ha d v io la te d t he Fai r Hou si ng Act (F HA). IMS m ov edforsu m

m ary jud gm en t an d the m ag is tra te jud ge reco m m en de d th atth e d is tri ctco urt g ran t IM S’s m ot io n b ecau se Lam pl ey ha d fa il edto co m e fo rwardwith a ny evi de nc e o n e ss en ti al ele m en ts of h is cla im s. Th e d is tri ctco urt ov erru le d Lam

pl ey ’s ob jecti on s an d a do pt edth e m ag is tra te jud ge ’s rep ort an d reco m m en da ti on . Lam

pl ey no w app eal s. Be fo re we can c on si de r th e m eri ts of t he is su es Lam

pl ey rai se s o n app eal , we m

us t d eci de whet he r he ha s p ro pe rly pr es en te d t he m . II. W e rea d b rie fs fil edby pr o s e li ti ga nt s l ib eral ly, bu t i f anis su e is no t b rie fed on a pr o s e ap pe al itwil l b e d eem edab an do ne d, ju stas i t wo ul d b e in a cas e pr es en te d t hr ou gh co un se l. Tims on v. Sa mso n , 51 8 F .3d87 0, 8 74 (11 th Cir . 220 08 ). Add it io na ll y , if an is su e is m en ti on edon ly in p as si ng , itis no t p ro pe rly

br ie fedan d t hu s ab an do ne d. Gre en br ia r, Ltd. v. Ci tyof Ala ba st er , 88 1 F .2d15 70 , 15 73 n.6 ; se e a ls o T

ed de r v. F.M.C. Co rp . , 59 0 F .2d11 5, 1 17 (5t h C ir. 1 97 9) 1 (s ta ti ng th ata po in t ra is edinth e st at em en t o f is su es bu t n otelabo rat edon el se whe re i n t he bri ef i s d eem edab an do ne d) . W e al so do no t co ns id er i ss ue s rai se d fo r th e fi rs t t im e o n app eal . Acces s N ow, Inc . v. Sw. Ai rl in es Co
. , 38 5 F .3d 13 24 , 13 31 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). Mo stof Lam

pl ey ’s cla im s h av e n otbe enpro pe rly pres en te d i n thi s co urt. To b eg in with, Lam

pl ey rai se s fo r th e fi rs t t im e o n app eal th e is su e o f whe th er arb it rat io n s ho ul d h av e b eenco m pe ll ed . As su ch , we wil l n otco ns id er i t. Add it io na ll y , alt ho ug h Lam pl ey in cl ud edth es e is su es inhi s s ta te m en t o f th e is su es , nei th er Lam

pl ey ’s op en in g b rie f no r hi s re pl y bri ef el ab or at e fu rth er o n ho w th e d is tri ctco urt (1 ) erre d b y no t ac kn owl ed gi ng it s l oc al rul e reg ard in g p ag e li mit at io ns , (2) ab us edit s d is cret io n b y no t n ot ifyin g h im

of ahe ari ng on th e de fen da nt ’s m ot io n t o c om pe l, o r (3 ) ab us edit s d is cret io n b y fai li ng to ap po in t a sp eci al m as te r. Acco rd in gl y , we wil l n otco ns id er tho se is su es .

Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 ( 11th Cir. 1981) ( en banc ) (“ [T] he 1 decisions of the United States Court of Appea ls for the [former ] Fifth Circuit . . . shall be binding as pre cede nt in the Eleventh Circuit . . . .”). 3Rea di ng Lam pl ey ’s bri ef l ib eral ly, we fi ndon ly one is su e p ro pe rly befo re us : wh ethe r th e d is tri ctco urt erredby gran ti ng su m m ary jud gm en t o n h is FMLA cl ai m s. 2 III. The FMLA p ro hi bi ts anem pl oyer fro m

in te rfer in g wi th anem

pl oyee’s ex erci se of h is FMLA ri gh ts . 29 U.S.C. § 2 61 5( a)(1 ). The FM LA als o re qu ire s th atwhi le anem

pl oyee is on FMLA le av e, th e em pl oyer m us t “ m ai nt ai n c ov erag e un de r any ‘ gr oup h eal thpl an ’ . . . for the du rat io n o f su chlea ve at the lev el an d un de r the co ndit io ns co verag e wo uld h av e b een pr ov ided if th e emp lo

yee h ad co nt in ue d i n e mpl oy men t co nt in uo us lyfo r the du ra ti on of su ch lea ve .” Id
. § 2 61 4( c)(1 ) (em

ph as is ad de d) . Lam pl ey co nt en ds th atIMS’s ca nc el la ti on of h is he al thcare co ve rag e was pr oh ib it edin te rfer en ce wi th th e ex erci se of h is FMLA ri gh ts . IMS re sp on ds th at Lam pl ey ’s po li cy

was c an cel le d b ecau se he fai le d t o p ay hi s s ha re o f th e pr em iu m s. At h is de po si ti on , Lam pl ey adm it te d t ha t h e h adfai le d t o p ay hi s pr em iu m s wh il e o n l eav e. Altho ug h IM S was ob li ga te d t o m ai nt ai n Lam pl ey ’s he al th care co ve rag e whi le he was o n F MLA le av e, it s o bl ig at io n o nl y ex te nd edto

We reviewan orde r re ndering summary judgme nt de novo and apply the same 2 standards a s the district court. Carter v. Galloway , 352 F.3d 1346, 1348 ( 11th Cir. 2003). 4m ai nt ai ni ng th atco ve rag e und er the same con di ti on s tha t i t wo ul d h av e h adto ha d

Lam pl ey no t b eenon lea ve . Und er ei th er s cen ari o, Lam pl ey was o bl ig at edto pa y hi s s ha re o f th e p rem iu m , justas I MS was ob li ga te d t o p ay it s s ha re. And Lam pl ey adm it te d t ha t o nc e h e p ai d h is sh are o f th e p rem iu m , hi s b en efi ts were res to red . As Lam

pl ey ha s n otoff

eredan y ev id en ce tha t IM S fai le d t o p ay it s s ha re of hi s h eal thcare pre m iu m

whi le he was o n l eav e an d h e adm it te d tha t h e fai le d t o pa y hi s, we co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt was co rrec t t o re nd er s umm ary jud gm en t o n h is FMLA in te rfer en ce cl ai m . The FMLA al so requi res th atif an e m pl oyee tak es lea ve un de r th e act , he m us t b e res to redto th e p os it io n h e h el d b efo re t ak in g l eav e o r to a po si ti on with

“ equi va le ntem

pl oym en t b en efi ts , pay, andot he r te rm s an d c on di ti on s o f em pl oym en t.” Id
. § 2 61 4( a). Bef or e ta ki ng FMLA le av e, Lam pl ey work edat a n IMS -m an ag edpro pe rty call edth e Pea ch tre e Ro adHig hr is e. Whe n Lam pl ey returne d fr om

hi s l eav e h e was to ldto rep ort t o wo rkat ano th er IM S-m an ag ed pr op erty , Uni ve rs it y

Hom es . It i s u nd is pu te d tha t Lam pl ey ’s po si ti on at Uni ve rs ity

Hom es ha d t he same tit le , pay, andbe ne fit s as th e p os it io n h e h el d a t th e Pea ch tre e Ro adHig hr is e. Asi de fro m th e ch an ge inlo cat io n, we ca n d is cern no di ffer en ce i n t he se po si ti on s fr om th e rec or d. Be cau se th ere i s n o e vi de nc e th at Lam pl ey ’s po si ti on at Un iv ers it y Hom es was n otequi va le ntto th e o ne he he ldat 5th e Pea ch tre e Ro adHig hr is e, we co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt d idno t err in

ren de rin g s umm ary jud gm en t o n t hi s cl ai m . As Lam pl ey ha s n otin tro du cedan y

ev id en ce s ho win g age nu in e is su e o f m at eri al fact , we con cl ud e th atsu m m ary jud gm en t fo r IMS was p ro pe r. AFFIRMED.

6