[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 12 15 7 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 6 :0 9- cv -0 03 97 -GAP-DAB MELISSA G. HAMMETT, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

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

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Au gu st28 , 20 12 )

Befo re HULL, EDMONDSON andBLACK, Cir cu itJu dg es .

Case: 11-12157 Date Filed: 08/28/2012 Page: 1 of 5PER CURI AM:

Mel is saHam

m et t, p ro ceed in g p ro se, app eal s t he de ni al of h er Fe d.R .Civ .P. 60 (b ) m ot io n fo r rel ie f fro m jud gm en t. No rev ers ib le erro r ha s b eensh own ; we affi rm . 1 Ham m et t fi le d aciv il co m

pl ai ntag ai ns t h er fo rm er em pl oyer, th e Dep art m en t o f Hom el an d S ecu rit y (“ DHS”), al le gi ng th atDHS ret al ia te d a ga in st he r, in vi ol at io n o f Tit le VII of th e Ci vi l Ri gh ts Act o f 19 64 , 42 U.S.C. §§ 20 00 e2( a) an d 2 00 0e -3 (a), af

te r sh e fi le d acla im

of g en de r di sc riminat io n wi th th e Equ al Em pl oym en t Op po rtu ni ty Comm is si on . In p art ic ul ar, Hamm et t co nt en de d th atDHS pl acedhe r on lea ve res tri ct io n, i ss ue d t wo l et te rs of r ep rimand , and te rm in at edhe r in ret al ia ti on forhe r pr ot ect edco nduc t. Co ns tru edli be ral ly, Ham m et t’s co m

pl ai ntass ert edret al ia ti on cla im s u nd er b ot h atra di ti on al ap pr oa ch (wh ere the de ci si on m ak er i s m ot iv at edby a retal ia to ry an im us ) an d u nd er a “ cat ’s pa w” ap pr oa ch (whe re t he de ci si on m ak er i s n otm ot iv at edby a retal ia to ry an im us bu t i s i nf lu en cedby a no n- de ci si on m ak er wh o i s s o m ot iv at ed ). 2

We const ru e l i b er al ly pro se pleading s. Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 1 2008). On appe al, Hammett aba ndons expressly

her r etaliation claim under the traditional appr oach. 2
2

Case: 11-12157 Date Filed: 08/28/2012 Page: 2 of 5The di st ric t co ur t g ran te d s umm ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of DHS. The d is tri ct
co ur t fi rs t as su m edarg ue nd o t ha t Hamm et t es tabl is he d apri m a fac ie cas e o f ret al ia ti on un de r Tit le VII. Bu t t he co ur t t he n c on cl ud edth atHam m et t fa il edto sh ow t ha t DHS’s l eg it im at e, no n- ret al ia to ry reas on s fo r di sc ip li ni ng he r -- in cl ud in g t ha t Hamm et t l eftworksev eral ti m es wit ho utau th or iz at io n, re fu se d t o fo ll ow s up erv is ory

in st ru ct io ns , andact edin an un pr of es si on al an d d is res pe ct fu l
m an ne r to ward s h er i m

m ed ia te supe rv is or s -- were a p ret ex t fo r di sc riminat io n. Ham m et t s ou gh t re li ef p ur su an t t o R ul e 6 0( b) (6 ), al le gi ng th atth e rec en t Uni te d S ta te s Supr em e Co urt’s d eci si on inStaub v. Pro ct orHos pi ta l, 1 31 S. Ct. 11 86 (20 11 ), co ns ti tu te d a n i nt erv en in g c ha ng e in th e la w. The d is tri ctco ur t 3 de ni edrel ie f wit ho utan ev id en ti ary he ari ng , con cl ud in g t ha t n ot hi ng in Staub affe ct edit s o rig in al de ci si on to gra ntsu m m ary jud gm en t. Ham

m et t n ow ch al le ng es th e d en ia l o f he r Ru le 60 (b )(6 ) m ot io n o n app eal
. 4

Hammett al s o s o u gh t re l ief under Rule 60(b)( 1) based on alleg ed mistakes of fac t and law. 3 Be cause she does not raise that iss u e o n appea l, she has abandone d it. See N. Am. Med. C orp. v. Axi om Worldwide, Inc., 522 F.3d 1211, 1217 n.4 (11th Cir. 2 0 0 8 ) (stating t hat “issues not raised on appea l are abandone d”). In her notice of appea l, Hammett also indicated that she was appea ling from the district court’s 4 g rant of summary judgme nt and the district court’s denial of her Fe d.R.Civ.P
. 59 motion to alter or am en d the district court’s judgme nt. Be cause Hammett has not offe red any argument on thes e issues, howeve r, they are abandone d. See N. Am. Med. Corp., 522 F.3d at 1217 n.4. Moreove r, in her appellate brief, Hammett states expressly that, pre- Staub, the district c ourt’s g rant of summary judgme nt was cor

rec t. 3 Case: 11-12157 Date Filed: 08/28/2012 Page: 3 of 5W e rev ie w th e d en ia l o f a Ru le 60 (b )(6 ) m ot io n fo r an ab us e o f di sc ret io n.

Crap p v . Cit y

of M ia m i Be ach Po li ce Dep ’t, 24 2 F .3d10 17 , 10 19 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). The gra ntor d en ia l o f Ru le 60 (b ) rel ie f is a m at te r fo r th e d is tri ctco ur t’s s ou nd di sc ret io n a nda di st ric t co ur t’s d en ia l o f a Ru le 60 (b ) m ot io n wi ll no t b e
ov erturne d u nl es s t he ap pe ll an t “ de m on st rat e[s ] a jus ti fic at io n s o c om pe ll in g t ha t th e [d is tri ct ] co ur t was requi redto va cat e it s o rd er.” Se e Can o v . Bak er, 4 35 F.3d 13 37 , 13 42 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). Ham m et t fa il s t o s ho w th atth e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n d en y in g he r rel ie f. In S taub , th e Supr em e Co ur t ad dr es se d a n e m pl oyer’s li ab il it y

un de r th e Uni fo rm edServ ic es Em pl oym en t an d R eem

pl oym en t Ri gh ts Act o f 19 94 , 38 U.S.C. § 4 30 1 (“ USERRA”) , bas edon a cat ’s paw t he ory of d is cri m in at io n. Th e Supr em e Co ur t’s an al y si s fo cu se d o n t he cau sa l co nn ect io n b et ween th e
no n- de ci si on m ak er’s d is cri m in at ory an im us an d t he ul ti m at e em

pl oym en t de ci si on . Alt ho ug h S taub in vo lv eda cat ’s paw t he ory of d is cri m in at io n -- as d oe s Ham m et t’s ca se -- St aub h as no be ari ng on th e d is tri ctco ur t’s d eci si on he re, wh ere th e d is tri ctco ur t as su m edarg ue nd o t ha t Hamm et t h adsat is fie d t he cau sa l el em en t

4 Case: 11-12157 Date Filed: 08/28/2012 Page: 4 of 5of

he r pr im a fac ie cas e o f ret al ia ti on . The d is tri ctco ur t’s an al y si s the n h in ge d o n 5 a d et erm in at io n t ha t Hamm et t h adfai le d t o s ho w th atDHS’ s l eg it im at e, no ndi sc riminat ory

reas on s wer e p ret ex tu al . Thu s, ev en to th e ex te ntth atStaub
co ns ti tu te d a n i nt erv en in g c ha ng e in th e la w -- an d a ss um in g, wi th ou t d eci di ng , th atStaub ap pl ie s t o Ti tl e VII ca se s -- Staub ha d n o i m pa cton th e o ut co m e o f Ham m et t’s ca se . The d is tri ctco ur t co m m it te d n o abu se of d is cret io n i n d en y in g 6 Ham m et t’s Ru le 60 (b )(6 ) m ot io n fo r rel ie f. AFFIR MED.

Be cause of this assumption, the district court did not distinguish betwee n Hammett’s traditional 5 and cat’s paw c laims. Be cause Staub was not pertinent to the outcome in this case, we need not a ddress Ha mmett’s 6 arguments that the district court err ed in stating that she lacke d t h e ca u sal evidenc e that was dispositi ve in Staub or in denying H ammett an evide ntiary hearing. 5 Case: 11-12157 Date Filed: 08/28/2012 Page: 5 of 5