[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 21-13937

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

ROBERT WALKER, 

TAMIKO N. PEELE, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, 

ROBIN R. WEINER, 

JOANNA P. TEMPONE, 

THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF 

EDUCATION, 

KELEY JACOBSON, P.A., et al.,

USCA11 Case: 21-13937 Date Filed: 10/06/2022 Page: 1 of 4
2 Opinion of the Court 21-13937

Defendants-Appellees.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 9:21-cv-80568-AMC

____________________

Before JORDAN, NEWSOM, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Robert Walker and Tamiko Peele, Chapter 13 debtors proceeding pro se, appeal from the district court’s denial of their motion to reconsider the sua sponte dismissal of their appeal from the 

bankruptcy court. Their notices of appeal to the district court indicated that, among other orders issued by the bankruptcy court, 

they were appealing the order dismissing their Chapter 13 case.

Although we read briefs filed by pro se litigants liberally, issues not briefed on appeal by a pro se litigant are deemed abandoned. Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008). 

Mere reference to an issue in a brief, absent argument and citations 

of authority in support of that issue, is insufficient to preserve the 

issue on appeal, even for pro se filings. Horsley v. Feldt, 304 F.3d 

1125, 1131 n.1 (11th Cir. 2002); Hamilton v. Southland Christian 

Sch., Inc., 680 F.3d 1316, 1319 (11th Cir. 2012).

USCA11 Case: 21-13937 Date Filed: 10/06/2022 Page: 2 of 4
21-13937 Opinion of the Court 3

Here, the debtors have abandoned their challenge to the 

bankruptcy court’s dismissal of their Chapter 13 case. Their 58-

page initial brief contains but a single sentence requesting reversal, 

with no argument or citation to authority. Further, the debtors’ 

initial brief does not otherwise appear to contain any argument or 

authority related to the bases for the bankruptcy court’s dismissal 

order, including the debtors’ failure to timely modify the plan to 

conform with U.S. Bank’s claim or provide that real property 

would be treated outside the plan; their proposal of a plan that was 

not confirmable; and their attempt to value and avoid U.S. Bank’s 

claim, in violation of 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(2). Thus, the debtors’ 

bare assertion that this Court should reverse the dismissal order is 

insufficient to preserve their challenge to it. Hamilton, 680 F.3d at 

1319. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

DISMISSED.1 

1 The debtors’ two motions—one for fees, costs, and expenditures, and the 

other for leave to file excess pages—are both DENIED. The debtors do not 

specify under what source of authority they are seeking fees, costs, and expenditures. To the extent that they seek to rely on this Court’s inherent power 

to impose attorneys’ fees, the debtors offer no argument or explanation as to 

how the appellees have acted in bad faith or why they are otherwise entitled 

to attorneys’ fees. See, e.g., Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 45–46 

(1991) (discussing courts’ inherent power to impose attorneys’ fees when a 

party acts “in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons”)

(quoting Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co. v. Wilderness Soc’y, 421 U.S. 240, 258–59 

(1975)). To the extent that the debtors attempt to rely on Rule 38, such reliance is misplaced. Rule 38 only allows appellees to recover damages and costs. 

See Fed. R. App. P. 38. 

USCA11 Case: 21-13937 Date Filed: 10/06/2022 Page: 3 of 4
To the extent that U.S. Bank requests that we impose sanctions on the 

debtors pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38, its motion is 

DENIED. Although the debtors have submitted many lengthy and difficultto-discern filings before the bankruptcy court, the district court, and this 

Court, appellants are proceeding pro se, and U.S. Bank did not file a separate 

motion for sanctions. See Fed. R. App. P. 38 (“If a court of appeals determines 

that an appeal is frivolous, it may, after a separately filed motion or notice 

from the court and reasonable opportunity to respond, award just damages 

and single or double costs to the appellee.”) (emphasis added); Woods v. I.R.S., 

3 F.3d 403, 404 (11th Cir. 1993) (declining to impose Rule 38 sanctions because 

of the appellant’s pro se status). Unlike the few pro se appellants who have 

been sanctioned by this Court, the debtors were not explicitly warned that the 

particular arguments they now make on appeal are frivolous. See King v. 

United States, 789 F.2d 883, 884 (11th Cir. 1986).

USCA11 Case: 21-13937 Date Filed: 10/06/2022 Page: 4 of 4