F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT Jan uary26 , 2 006 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

N o. 05- 1085 3 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- D. C. Docket N o. 04-00007 -CV -W LS -6 J. R. SEAY, a . k
. a . J e r u me R
. S e a y, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A,
Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - Appeal f rom the United State s District Court for the Middle District of Ge orgia

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

(J an ua ry 26, 200 6)
Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, BL A CK a nd P RY O R, Ci rc uit

Jud ge s.
PE R CU RIA M:2

J. R. S eay appe al s th e dis m iss al , by the doc tr ine of

r es j udi ca ta , of

his pr o se qu ie t t it le act io n. No rev ers ib le erro r ha s b een sh own ; we af fir m . Se ay a lle ge d th at

the I nte rn al Re ve nue S er vic e (I RS ), by

f ai lin g to f oll ow proper its own adm inistrative procedures, w rongfullyseized and sold (to satisfy his ta x li ab ili ty ) nin e pa rc el s of pr ope rty that S eay ow ne d. S eay

c la im ed that the IRS’ s tax lien was f

raudulent and th at the seizure and levy of his properties was voi d. S eay

f urthe r co nte nde d th at

the f ed er al gov er

nm en t l ac ke d auth or ity

a nd j ur isd ic tio n ov er

his pr ope rt ie s be ca

use the se pr ope rt ie s w er e in the state of Ge orgia. The district court dism issed Seay ’ s lawsuit as barr ed by the doctrine of res ju d i ca t a. Th at co u rt n o t ed t h at t h e I RS ea rl i erh ad fi l ed an ac t i o n t o s ei ze Se ay’s pr ope rty , that S eay

ha d m ove d to obt ai n ate m por ar y r es tr ai nin g or de r (T RO ) to pr ev en t the I RS f

ro m se lli ng h is p ro pe rty , a nd tha t S eay ’ s a lle ga tio ns w er e the
sa m e in the T RO a nd i n th e pr es en t qu ie t t itl e ac tio n. W e co nc lud e tha t S eay

ha s a ba ndon ed ac ha lle nge to the pr opr ie ty of the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s r es j udi ca ta dis m iss al
. I n hi s in iti al appe llate br ie f, S eay m en tio ns tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt di sm iss ed his c om pla int on r es j udi ca tagr ound s, a nd h e fr am es the iss ue a s “ the dis m iss al of [ his ] c om

pla int by the dis tr ic t c ourt w as not pr ope r. ” Bu t S eay

m ak es no s ubst an tiv e ar gum en t a bout the pr opr ie ty

of theWe note that Seay does challeng e the res judicata basis of the dismissal in his reply brief. B ut 1 arguments raised f

or the fir st time in a reply brief a re not prope rly

befor e us. See L ovett v. Ray , 327 F.3d 1181, 1183 ( 11th Cir. 2003). We reviewde novo whe ther a lawsuit is barre d on the basis of re s judicata. Rag sdale, 193 F .3d 2 at 1238. 3 dis tr ic t c ourt’ s r es j udi ca ta dis m iss al : S ea

y dir ec ts h is s ubst an tiv e ar gum en t t o th e unde rl y ing c la im s he pr es en te d inhis c om pla int
. E ve n th oughw e ar e m ind fu l of the li be ra l c onstru ct ionw e af fo rd to pr o se ple ad ing s, S eay ha s a ba ndon ed a ch al le nge to the r es j udi ca taba sis of the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s di sm iss al
. S ee I rw in v
. H aw k, 40 F
. 3d 3 47 & n. 1 ( 11th C ir
. 199 4) ( not ing pr o se li tig an t a ba ndon s is sue by not challengin g it on app eal). 1 And regar dless, w e agre e w ith the dis trict court that Seay ’ s action is barred by the doc tr ine of

r es j udi ca ta : this doc tr ine bars c la im s “ w hic h w er e ra ise d or
co ul d h av e b een rai se d i n a n e arl ie r pr oc eed in g.” Rag sd al e v . Rub be rm ai d, In c., 193 F. 3d 1 235, 123 8 ( 11th C ir
. 199 9)
. A c la im w ill be barr ed

by pr ior li tig at ion 2 if : ( 1) af ina l j udgm en t w as r en de re d onthe m er its ; ( 2) ac ourt of c om pe te nt j urisdictio n m ade the decision; (3) the parties, or those in privi ty with them , are id en ti cal in bo th su it s; an d (4 ) th e sa m e cau se of a ct io n i s i nv ol ve d i n b ot h c as es . Id
. H er e, a ll fo ur

r equir em en ts w er e m et . T he U nit ed S ta te s D istri ct

Co urt f or the Middle District of G eorgia resolved this case and the earlier case, In re Ta x4

In de bte dne ss o f J. R. S eay . T he part ie s are the sa m e. S eay ’ s arg um en t i n bo th
ca se s w as ba se d onthe sa m e fa ct s: the gov er nm en t’ s a lle ge dly

w ro ngf ul and procedurally

infirm seizure of his prop erty

to satisfy his tax liabili ty . And a f inal j udgm en t onthe m er its oc curr ed in the ta x su it. AFFIR MED.