[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-13577

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

JOHNNIE DEMOND JACKSON, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

SHERIFF KEVIN R. SPROUL, 

LT CARLA WATSON, 

PHOEBE PUTNEY HOSPITAL,

NURSE AUDREY JOINER, 

NURSE LYNN MONTGERARD, 

Defendants-Appellees,

CPT JERROMA WILLIAMS, et al.,

USCA11 Case: 22-13577 Document: 47-1 Date Filed: 08/09/2023 Page: 1 of 5
2 Opinion of the Court 22-13577

Defendants.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Georgia

D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cv-00028-LAG-TQL

____________________

Before JORDAN, NEWSOM, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Johnnie Jackson, proceeding pro se, appeals the district 

court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Sheriff Kevin 

Sproul, Shirley Adams, Carla Watson, and Dominique Kendricks 

(collectively the “jail officers”), as well as in favor of Phoebe Putney 

Memorial Hospital (“PPMH”), Lynn Montgerard, Audrea Joiner, 

Escolethia Miller, and Sherryl Haugabrook (collectively the “medical providers”), on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims. After responding 

to the motions for summary judgment, Mr. Jackson filed motions 

to supplement the record, which the district court denied. On appeal Mr. Jackson argues that the court erred in granting summary 

judgment for the jail officers and medical providers on his § 1983 

claims alleging deliberate indifference as to food and medical 

needs, denial of access to mail, failure to train nurses, and retaliation. He also contends that the court erred in denying his motion 

to supplement the record, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15. 

USCA11 Case: 22-13577 Document: 47-1 Date Filed: 08/09/2023 Page: 2 of 5
22-13577 Opinion of the Court 3

We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment and construe all facts and draw all reasonable inferences in 

favor of the non-moving party. See Burton v. Tampa Hous. Auth., 

271 F.3d 1274, 1276-77 (11th Cir. 2001). We review the denial of a 

motion to supplement for abuse of discretion. See Shipner v. E. Air 

Lines, Inc., 868 F.2d 401, 407 (11th Cir. 1989). 

A party who fails to object to a magistrate judge’s findings 

or recommendations contained in a report and recommendation in 

accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives the 

right to challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on unobjected-to factual findings and legal conclusions, if the party was 

informed of the time period for objecting and the consequences on 

appeal for failing to object. See 11th Cir. R. 3-1. However, in the 

absence of a proper objection, we may review the issue for plain 

error if necessary in the interests of justice. See id.

Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than attorney-drafted pleadings and are, therefore, liberally construed. See 

Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998). 

The leniency afforded pro se litigants with liberal construction does 

not give a court license to act as de facto counsel or permit it to rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading to sustain an action. Campbell 

v. Air Jamaica Ltd., 760 F.3d 1165, 1168-69 (11th Cir. 2014). “[I]ssues 

not briefed on appeal by a pro se litigant are deemed abandoned.” 

Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). An appellant fails to adequately brief a claim when he does 

not “plainly and prominently raise it.” Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian 

USCA11 Case: 22-13577 Document: 47-1 Date Filed: 08/09/2023 Page: 3 of 5
4 Opinion of the Court 22-13577

Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 681 (11th Cir. 2014) (quotation marks omitted). An appellant likewise abandons a claim when he “either 

makes only passing references to it or raises it in a perfunctory manner without supporting arguments and authority.” Id.; see also 

United States v. Campbell, 26 F.4th 860, 873 (11th Cir. 2022) (en banc) 

(holding that issues not raised in an initial brief are deemed forfeited and will not be addressed absent extraordinary circumstances).

As an initial matter, Mr. Jackson has waived any argument 

as to his claims for inadequate nutrition, mail interference, retaliation, and failure to train because the magistrate judge informed 

him of the timeline for objecting and he failed to object to the magistrate judge’s legal conclusions regarding those claims. Further, 

Mr. Jackson has abandoned on appeal his argument as to his claim 

for inadequate medical care by failing to offer supporting arguments or authority. See Sappupo, 739 F.3d at 681.

Turning to the denial of the motion to supplement, 

“[d]istrict courts enjoy broad discretion in deciding how best to 

manage the cases before them.” Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp., 

123 F.3d 1353, 1366 (11th Cir. 1997). “[A]bsent an affirmative showing by the non-moving party of excusable neglect according to Rule 

6(b) a court does not abuse its discretion when it refuses to accept 

out-of-time affidavits” filed in opposition to a summary judgment 

motion. See Farina v. Mission Inv. Tr., 615 F.2d 1068, 1076 (5th Cir. 

1980); see also Clinkscales v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 831 F.2d 1565, 1568 

USCA11 Case: 22-13577 Document: 47-1 Date Filed: 08/09/2023 Page: 4 of 5
22-13577 Opinion of the Court 5

(11th Cir. 1987) (same); Farina v. Mission Inv. Tr., 615 F.2d 1068, 

1076 (5th Cir. 1980) (same). 

Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mr. Jackson’s motions to supplement the record because he 

failed to show excusable neglect. He did not, for example, explain 

why he was unable to submit his evidence with his declarations. 

Further, Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d) is inapplicable because summary 

judgment motions are not pleadings. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a).

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 22-13577 Document: 47-1 Date Filed: 08/09/2023 Page: 5 of 5