[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-12380

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

TIFFANY P. RANGE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

U.S. POSTMASTER GENERAL,

Defendant-Appellee,

DEAJHE HUTCHINSON, et al.,

Defendants.

____________________

USCA11 Case: 22-12380 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 08/08/2023 Page: 1 of 4
2 Opinion of the Court 22-12380

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cv-02755-VMC

____________________

Before ROSENBAUM, JILL PRYOR, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Tiffany Range, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s 

order dismissing her second amended complaint with prejudice. In 

a report and recommendation, the magistrate judge concluded that 

the second amended complaint should be dismissed because it 

failed to state a claim for relief and Range had failed to comply with 

court orders. When the magistrate judge issued the report and recommendation, he warned the parties of the need to object, stating 

that “[a] party [who] fails to object . . . waives the right to challenge 

on appeal the District Court’s order based on any factual or legal 

conclusions in the report and recommendation.” Doc. 25 at 1–2

(citing 11th Cir. R. 3-1).1 Range never objected. The district court 

ultimately adopted the report and recommendation, granted the 

motion to dismiss, and dismissed the second amended complaint 

with prejudice. Range now appeals. 

Because Range failed to object to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, she waived her right to appeal the dismissal of her second amended complaint. Under 28 U.S.C. 

1 “Doc.” numbers refer to the district court’s docket entries.

USCA11 Case: 22-12380 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 08/08/2023 Page: 2 of 4
22-12380 Opinion of the Court 3

§ 636(b)(1), “any party may serve and file written objections” to a 

magistrate judge’s report and recommendations within 14 days of 

being served with the report and recommendation. The district 

court must then “make a de novo determination of those portions 

of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations 

to which objection is made.” Id. But under our Circuit’s rules, a 

party who fails to object to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation “waives the right to challenge on appeal the district 

court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions.” 11th Cir. R. 3-1. Still, even without “proper objection,” we 

“may review on appeal for plain error if necessary in the interests 

of justice.” Id.

Because Range failed to object to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation after being warned “of all of the consequences on appeal for failing to object,” she waived any challenge 

she could have made to the adverse ruling. See Harrigan v. Metro 

Dade Police Dep’t Station #4, 977 F.3d 1185, 1192 (11th Cir. 2020)

(internal quotation marks omitted). Although we may review the 

rulings of the district court for plain error, Range does not ask us 

to do so. Indeed, her brief never acknowledges the magistrate 

judge’s report and recommendation, much less argues that it is necessary in the interests of justice for us to review the district court’s 

decision after she failed to object. We thus will not consider this 

issue, which Range has abandoned. See Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 

870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008) (noting that “issues not briefed on appeal 

by a pro se litigant are deemed abandoned”).

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 22-12380 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 08/08/2023 Page: 3 of 4
4 Opinion of the Court 22-12380

USCA11 Case: 22-12380 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 08/08/2023 Page: 4 of 4