FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MARCH 15, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 14 10 0 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 3 :0 9- cv -0 09 19 -MHT-TFM AUSTIN CHAZ RAMSEY, Pla in ti ff-Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us ARNOLD GAMBER, Defen dant -Ap pe ll ee.

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

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof Al ab am a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma rch 15 , 20 12 ) Befo re BARKETT, HULL andANDERSON, Circu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Pl ai nt iff Aus ti n R am se y

ap pe al s (1 ) th e d is tri ctco urt’s Fe brua ry 7, 2 01 1 or de r gr an ti ng su m

m ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of Defen da ntArno ldGam

be r on Ram se y ’s st at e-l aw cl ai m s o f ne gl ig en ce an d wan to nn es s an d (2 ) it s s ep arat e 1 Aug us t 1 8, 2 01 1o rd er d en y in g h is m ot io n t o a lt er, am en d o r va cat e th e d is tri ct co urt’s s umm ary jud gm en t o rd er, p ur su an t t o F ed eral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 59 (e). Aft er re vi ew, we affi rm . As an in it ia l m at te r, Ram se y ’s bri ef m ak es no arg um en t an d c it es no au th or it y rel ev an t t o the di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f hi s R ul e 5 9 m ot io n. Acco rd in gl y , th is is su e is de em edab an do ne d. Ca rm ic ha el v. Kel lo gg , Bro wn & Ro otServ s., In c., 57 2 F .3d12 71 , 12 93 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ) (“ The law i s b y no w well se tt le d i n t hi s C irc ui t tha t a l eg al cla im or a rg um en t tha t h as no t b een bri efed be fo re the co urt i s d eem edab an do ne d a ndit s m eri ts wil l n otbe ad dr es se d.” (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o mit te d) ). In a ny even t, the di st ric t co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n b y

de nyin g t he Ru le 59 (e) m ot io n b ecau se th e ev id en ce Ra m se y so ug htto in tro du ce was av ai labl e m on th s b efo re the di st ric t co urt g ran te d su m m ary jud gm en t. See Drag o v . Jen ne , 45 3 F .3d13 01 , 13 05 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). 2

The district cour

t’s jurisdiction was based on dive rsity of citizenship. See 28 U.S.C. 1 § 1332. Ramsey ’s appe llate brief also does not addr ess the district cour t’s grant of summar

y 2 judgme nt for De fenda

nt Gamber

on Ramsey ’s claim of “ interfe renc e with the phy sician/patient relationship.” This iss ue is also dee med aba ndoned. See Ca

rmichae l, 572 F.3d at 1293.(“ [T]his co urt re vi ews th e d en ia l o f a Ru le 59 m ot io n fo r anab us e o f di sc ret io n.” ) .

Thu s, we d is cu ss on ly the factua l b ack gr ou ndan d l aw rel ev an t t o Gam be r’s m ot io n fo r su m

m ary jud gm en t.I. BACKG ROUND A. Ram se y’ s I njur y Pl ai nt iff Aus ti n R am se y

was asch ol ars hi p fo otba ll pl ay er fo r Aub urn Uni ve rs ity . In Dec em

be r 20 07 , Ram se y

in jure d h is sp in e whi le li fti ng weig ht s. Dr. Mi ch ael Goo dl ett was res po ns ib le forth e h eal th of a ll Aub urn a th le te s. Aft er ph y si cal th erap y

fai le d t o re li ev e Ram se y ’s in jury, Dr. Goo dl ett re ferr edRam se y to anort ho pe di c su rg eo n. InApri l 2 00 8, Ra m se y

un de rwen t s pi na l s ur ge ry . The s ur ge ry was su cces sf ul , andinMay 200 8 t he su rg eo n c le aredRam se y fora return t o re gu la r tra in in g. Defen dantArno ldGam

be r was Aub urn’s h eadfoo tb al l trai ne r. In M ay 20 08 , Dr. Goo dl et t m etwith Def en dantGam

be r an d Kev in Yox al l, Aubu rn ’s st ren gth c oa ch , to de ve lo p asi x- weekreh ab il it at io n s ch edul e fo r Pl ai nt iff Ram se y . Tha t re habi li ta ti on sch edul e p erm it te d R am se y (1) to run an d jo g o nl y

fortwo to th ree d ay s, i ni ti al ly, th en(2) to run an d c om pl et e ex erci se s u si ng on ly Ram se y ’s

3own bo dy weig ht , and(3) fin al ly, to pe rfo rm sea te d upp er-b od y

weig ht -li fti ng an d le g- pr es se s. Yo xa ll was re sp on si bl e fo r de si gn in g a th le te s’ dai ly w ei gh t-r oo m reg im en s. Defe nd an t Gam be r was no t re sp on si bl e fo r supe rv is in g Yo xa ll or t he weig ht -ro om

ass is ta nt s. Dr. Goo dl et t ap pr ov edPla in ti ff Ra m se y ’s reh ab il it at io n p la n. Whenhe was le av in g t he May 200 8 m eet in g, Dr. Go od le ttob se rv edth atDefen da ntGam be r an d Yox al l “ were p ut ti ng to ge th er a wri tt enpl an .” Defen dantGam be r te st ifi edth at Dr. Goo dl et t v erb al ly app ro ve d thi s p la n. Dr. Go od le ttlat er s aw a co py of Ram se y ’s reh ab il it at io n p la n. Ho wev er, n o c op y of t he pl anwas i nt ro du cedin to ev id en ce an d n on e was fou ndinRam se y ’s m ed ic al ch art . Beg in ni ng inlat e Ma y

20 08 , Pla in ti ff Ra m se y

be ga n h is reh ab il it at io n wi th ru nn in g a ndst ret ch in g fo r two da y s. Ra m se y rep orte d n o p ai n fr om

th es e ex erci se s. OnJu ne 2, 2 00 8, Ra m se y wentto th e wei gh t ro om to be gi n t he sec on d pa rt o f hi s re habi li ta ti on , whi chpe rm it te d R am se y to ex erci se us in g o nl y

hi s o wn bo dy weig ht . At th e wei gh t ro om , Pau l Cr ei gh to n, an ass is ta ntto Yox al l, in st ru ct edRam se y

to pe rfo rm

squa ts an d “ bo x s te p ups ” whi le weari ng a 50 -p ou nd weig ht edve stan d h ol di ng two 35 -p ou nddu m bb el ls . In h is de po si ti on , Ram se y te st ifi edth atinth e wei gh t ro om on Ju ne 2, h e as ke d C rei gh to n wh ethe r he was

4“ supp os edto be do in g t ho se .” Acco rd in g t o R am se y , Crei gh to n re pl ie d, “ th ey ’re 3 on th e li st . I do n’t kno w who m ad e itup .” Ram se y pe rfo rm edtwo set s o f th es e ex erci se s o n J un e 2 . Duri ng th e se co ndset , he i m m ed ia te ly feltth e sa m e p ai n a nd ti ng li ng inhi s l eg th athe ex pe rie nc edbe fo re h is su rg ery. Ram se y imm ed ia te ly st op pe d e xe rci si ng . Afte r Pl ai nt iff

Ram se y ’s June 2, 2 00 8 wei gh t trai ni ng , Dr. Goo dl et t ex am in edRam se y

an d fo un d t ha t Ra m se y

ha d re -in jure d h is ba ck . In J anua ry 20 09 , Ram se y

ha d s ur ge ry

ag ai n. Fo ll owi ng th is sec on d s ur ge ry , Ram se y de ci de d no t t o p la y

foo tb al l, an d h e was m ed ic al ly dis qu al ifi edfro m foo tb al l due to th e ris k o f fu rth er i njury . B. Ramsey ’s La w su it InJu ly 200 9, Pl ai nt iff

Ram se y fil eda si x- co un t co m

pl ai ntag ai ns t Defen da ntGam

be r, who lat er m ov edforsu m m ary jud gm en t o n a ll cla im s. 4 Ram se y op po se d Gam

be r’s su m m ary jud gm en t m ot io n, b uton ly as to Ram se y ’s st at e-l aw cl ai m s t ha t: Gam be r ne gl ig en tl y

cau se d o r al lo wedRam se y to be ex po se d t o i nc reas edris k o f in jury by requi rin g h im

to li ft we ig ht s ag ai ns t h is In his deposition, R amsey did not identify

the weight-room assistant as Paul Creighton. 3 Ramsey ’s complaint also name d as a c odefe ndant Hugh Nall, Auburn’ s assistant 4 football coa ch. Howe ver, Ramse y voluntarily

dismiss ed his claims ag ainst Nall before summary judgme nt. 5ph y si ci an ’s in st ru ct io ns (Co un t 1 ); Ga m be r wan to nl y

cau se d o r al lo wedRam se y to be ex po se d t o i nc reas edris k o f in jury by requi rin g h im

to li ft we ig ht s ag ai ns t h is ph y si ci an ’s in st ru ct io ns (Co un t 2 ); a ndGam be r “ ne gl ig en tl y

an d/ orwant on ly in te rfer edwith t he ph y si ci an/p at ie ntrel at io ns hi p” be twee n R am se y an d h is orth op ed ic su rg eo n (C ou nt3). In a Feb ru ary 7, 2 01 1 o rd er, the di st ric t co urt gr an te d s umm ary jud gm en t fo r Defen da ntGam be r on all of R am se y ’s cla im s. Ram se y ap pe al ed . 5 II . DISCUSSI ON 6 A. Gamber’s Lia bi li tyon Coun ts 1 (Ne gl ig ence ) an d 2 (Wa nto nnes s) Und er Al ab am a la w, li ab il it y forne gl ig en ce re qu ire s t ha t (1 ) th e d efen da nt owe d adu ty to the pl ai nt iff , (2) th e d efen da ntbre ach edth atdu ty, an d (3 ) th e br each pro xi m at el y

cau se d t he pl ai nt iff’s in

jury. Alb ertv. Hs u, 6 02 So . 2d89 5,

In the district court, Ramsey did not oppose Gamber ’s summary judgme nt motion wit h 5 respe ct to Ramsey ’s claims ag ainst Gamber for outra g eous conduc t (Count 4), civil conspirac y (Count 5), and violation of his civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Count 6). Ramsey does not appea l the district court’s grant of summar y judgme nt on these cla ims. In addition, on appea l Ramsey does not brief

the issue of Ga

mber’s inter fer ence with the phy sician/patient re lationship. According ly , we do not conside r these issues. Car michael, 572 F.3d at 1293 (explaining that issues not briefe d on appea l are abandone d). A district court’s grant of summar y judgme nt is reviewe d de novo. Holloman v. Mail- 6 Well C orp., 443 F .3d 832, 836 (11th Cir. 2006). Summary judgme nt is appropriate when the evidenc e, viewe d in the light most favor able to the nonmovingparty , prese nts no ge nuine issue of material fac t and compels judgment as a matter of law . Fe d. R. Civ. P . 56(a) ; Holloman, 443 F.3d at 836. 689 7 (Al a. 19 92 ). A clai m of wa nt on ne ss als o re qu ire s p ro of of abre ach eddu ty. Ala. Po wer Co . v. Lan ey , 42 8 S o. 2 d 2 1, 2 2 (1 98 3) . Here, Pl ai nt iff Ram se y ha s in tro du cedno ev id en ce s ho win g t ha t Def en da ntGam

be r br each eda du ty he o wed to Ram se y . The wei gh t-r oo m ass is ta nt , no t Gam

be r, in st ru ct edRam se y

to pe rfo rm th e Ju ne 2, 2 00 8 e xe rci se s t ha t p rece de d h is re-i nju ry . Tho ug h Gam be r ha d s om e res po ns ib il it y

forim pl em en ti ng Ram se y ’s reh ab il it at io n p la n, Ram se y ha s pr oduc edno ev id en ce tha t Gam be r in cl ud edth e in

jury-caus in g e xe rci se s i n Ram se y ’s exe rci se reg im enforJu ne 2, 2 00 8. Ra th er, Gam be r te st ifi edth athe ha d no t au th or iz edRam se y

to ex erci se with wei gh ts on th e d ay he was re -in

jure d. W e rec og ni ze tha t Ra m se y cla im s t ha t the m is si ng reh ab il it at io n p lan en ti tl es hi m

to anadve rs e in fere nc e o f Gam be r’s ne gl ig en ce an d a t l eas t cr eat es a m at eri al is su e o f fac t fo r a jury becaus e Gam be r m us t h av e d es tro y edth e p la n i n an ti ci pa ti on of l it ig at io n. Ho wev er, Ram se y ha s p ro du cedno ev id en ce tha t an y on e d es tro y edth e wri tt enpl an , letalo ne th atGam be r de st ro y edth e p la n i n b ad fai th . See Ba sh ir v . Am

tra k, 1 19 F.3d92 9, 9 31 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ) (“ [A]n adve rs e in fere nc e is dra wn fr om

a pa rty’ s fa il ur e to pre se rv e ev id en ce o nl y when th e ab se nc e o f th atev id en ce i s p red ic at edon ba d fa it h. Me re n eg li ge nc e in lo si ng or de st ro y in g t he reco rd s i s n oten ou gh foranadve rs e in fere nc e, as itdo es no t

7su st ai n a n i nf eren ce o f co ns ci ou sn es s o f a weakcas e.” (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s an d c it at io n o m it te d) ). Ind eed , evi de nc e in th e rec or d s ug ge st s t ha t Gam be r co ul d no t h av e d es tro y edth e rel ev an t ev id en ce, m uc h l es s d es tro y editinba d fa it h. Yox al l, n otGam

be r, was r es po ns ib le forwrit in g a ndreco rd in g a th le te s’ dai ly weig ht -ro om

reg im en s. Inad di ti on , Gam be r’s em pl oym en t atAub urn e nd edin Ja nu ary 20 09 , m on th s b efo re thi s l it ig at io n c omm en ced , andGam be r te st ifi edth at he lef t b eh in d a ny do cu m en ts rel at edto hi s wo rkat Aubu rn . Pl ai nt iff Ram se y st res se s h is tes ti m on y

th atCrei gh to n, the weig ht -ro om as si st an t, t ol d R am se y

th atth e wei gh t-l ift in g e xe rci se s wer e “ on th e li st .” Ram se y arg ue s t ha t thi s s ta te m en t s ho ws Defe nd an t Gam be r ne gl ig en tl y

au th or iz edth e ex erci se s. Bu t as th e d is tri ctco urt co rrec tl y no te d, Ram se y ’s tes ti m on y ab ou t wha t the weig ht -ro om

ass is ta ntto ldRam se y

is in adm is si bl e h ears ay

an d t hu s can no t b e co ns id eredon Gam be r’s m ot io n fo r su m

m ary jud gm en t. See Re es e v . 7 Herb ert , 52 7 F .3d12 53 , 12 71 n.2 9 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) . Inan y ev en t, Ra m se y

st at edth atCrei gh to n a ls o s ai d, “ I do n’t kno w who m ad e [the li st ] up .” Acco rd in gl y , Crei gh to n’s t es ti m on y , eve n i f cre di te d, d oe s n ot

For rea sons expl ained be low, this hearsa y statement is also not admissible ag ainst 7 Gamber as a state ment by

“a pa rty ’s ag ent or ser

vant” be cause the evidenc e shows that we ightroom assistants were not under Ga mber’s c ontrol and direc tion and thus were not Gamber ’s ag ents or ser

vants. Fe d. R. Evid. 801(d)(2). 8sh ow tha t the li stwas t he writ te n re habi li ta ti on pl anGam be r an d Yo xa ll de ve lo pe d o r th atGam

be r ha d a ny con ne ct io n wh at so ev er t o t he all eg ederro ne ou s li st . B. Ga m ber’ s Vi ca ri ou s L ia bi li ty Defen da ntGam

be r is als o e nt it le d t o s umm ary jud gm en t o n R am se y ’s th eo ry of Ga m be r’s vi cari ou s l iabi li ty for Yo xa ll an d C rei gh to n. Ra m se y arg ue s th atGam be r “ fai le d t o e ns ur e” tha t Yo xa ll an d C rei gh to n, wh o wer e “un de r [Gam be r’s] con tro l,” d idno t p erm itRam se y to pe rfo rm

weig ht -li fti ng ex erci se s pr os cri be d b y

th e reh ab il it at io n p la n. Und er the do ctrin e o f res po nd eatsupe rio r, a 8 pr in ci pa l i s v ic ari ou sl y

li ab le forhi s ag en t’s n eg li ge ntact s d on e in th e sc op e o f th e ag en t’s em

pl oym en t s o l on g a s t he pri nc ip al co nt ro ls th e m ean s an d m etho d b y whi chth e ag en t p erfo rm s h is work . Mart in v. Go od ie s Di st rib ut io n, 6 95 So . 2d 11 75 , 11 77 (Ala . 19 97 ); s ee al so W are v . Tim m on s, 9 54 So . 2d54 5, 5 49 –5 0 (Al a. 20 06 ). The p arty

rel y in g o n t he do ctrin e o f res po nd eatsupe rio r ha s t he bu rd enof pr ov in g s uc h arel at io ns hi p b etweenpri nc ip al an d a ge nt . W are, 9 54 So . 2dat 5 55 . Here, the ev id en ce i n t he reco rdsh ows th atne it he r Yox al l n orweig ht -ro om as si st an ts were Gam

be r’s ag en ts . Bot h Gam

be r an d Dr. Go od le tttes ti fie d t ha t The district cour

t construed this theory

of vica rious liability

as a c laim of responde at 8 superior. In his brief on a ppeal, Ramsey

confirms that this theory is based on that doctrine. 9Gam

be r di d n otsupe rv is e Yox al l an d t ha t Yo xa ll in de pe nd en tl y m an ag edth e weig ht -ro om . Tho ug h Gam be r te st ifi edth athi s re co m m en da ti on s fo r anath le te ’s reh ab il it at io n re gi m enwou ldco nt ro l o ve r Yox al l’s, Gam be r al so tes ti fie d t ha t h e

“ can ’t sp eakto ho w Coa chYox al l ru ns hi s wei gh t ro om .” Fu rth er, as no te d ab ov e, Yox al l draft edath le te s’ dai ly w ei gh t-r oo m reg im en s, an d n o e vi de nc e su gg es ts th atGam

be r co nt ro ll ed , supe rv is ed , or d ire ct edYox al l i n t hi s capa ci ty. Nordo es th e rec or d s ho w th atGam be r ha d the po wer t o s el ector c ho os e Yox al l o r Yox al l’s s ta ff as hi s ag en ts . See Ware, 85 4 S o. 2 d a t 5 52 (“ [F]or the pu rp os e o f . . . resp on de atsupe rio r, itis in di sp en sabl e th atth e ri gh t t o s el ectth e p ers on cl ai m edto be a se rv an t s ho ul d e xi st .” (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m arkom it te d) ). In s um , Ram se y fai le d t o d em on st rat e th atGam be r ex erci se d t he requi si te co nt ro l o ve r th e m ean s an d m etho ds of Yo xa ll an d h is weig ht -ro om ass is ta nt s t o s us ta in li ab il it y on a th eo ry of r es po nd eatsupe rio r. C. Paul Crei gh to n’s Depo si tio n Tes timony Inhi s b rie f, Ram se y

cit es th e te st im on y

of P au l Cr ei gh to n, the weig ht -ro om as si st an t t o Yo xa ll pre se nton Ju ne 2, 2 00 8, wh enRam se y was re -in jure d. Crei gh to n’s d ep os it io n t es ti m on y was n otpa rt o f th e rec or d a t the ti m e th e d is tri ct co urt co ns id eredDefen da ntGam be r’s su m m ary jud gm en t m ot io n. Ra th er,

10Defen da ntGam be r to okCrei gh to n’s d ep os it io n o n Dec em be r 30 , 20 10 , aft er di sc ov ery ha d c on cl ud edan d a fte r Gam be r’s su m m ary jud gm en t m ot io n was subm it te d b utbe fo re the di st ric t co urt h adrul edon it . Afte r th e d is tri ctco urt g ran te d s umm ary jud gm en t fo r Gam be r on Feb ru ary 7, 2 01 1, Ra m se y

fil eda Ru le 59 (e) m ot io n t o a lt er, am en d o r va cat e th e d is tri ct co urt’s s umm ary jud gm en t o rd er o n g ro un ds th atCrei gh to n’s t es ti m on y sh owe d th atth e wri tt enreh ab il it at io n p la n e rro ne ou sl y pe rm it te d R am se y

to pe rfo rm

th e ex erci se s t ha t l edto hi s re -in jury. The d is tri ctco urt d en ie d R am se y ’s m ot io n fo r th ree r eas on s: (1) Ram se y fai le d t o a skth e d is tri ctco urt t o c on si de r Cre ig ht on ’s te st im on y aft er i t b ecame avai labl e an d b efo re the di st ric t co urt h adrul edon Gam be r’s su m m ary jud gm en t m ot io n; (2) Crei gh to n’s t es ti m on y co nt rad ic te d Ram se y ’s ownacco un t o f hi s re -in jury; and(3) Crei gh to n’s t es ti m on y di d n ot sh ow tha t Gam

be r was li ab le forCrei gh to n’s re -in jury. The di stric t co urt d idno t co ns id er the Crei gh to n t es ti m on y on su m m ary jud gm en t. As n ot edab ov e, we de em ab an do ne d R am se y ’s app eal of t he di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f hi s R

ul e 5 9( e) m ot io n t o a lt er, am en d o r va cat e th e su m m ary jud gm en t o rd er. Acco rd in gl y , we wil l n otco ns id er the Crei gh to n t es ti m on y inou r de no vo rev ie w of the di st ric t co urt’s s umm ary jud gm en t o rd er. See W el chv.

11Cel ot ex Co rp ., 95 1 F .2d12 35 , 12 37 n.3 (11 th Cir . 19 92 ) (“ Upo n re vi ew of a gr an t by a di st ric t co urt o f a m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t, a fe de ral ap pe ll at e co urt m ay ex am in e o nl y

th e ev id en ce wh ic h was be fo re the di stric t co urt wh enth e la tt er de ci de d t he m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t.”) . II I. CONCLUSI ON Upo n re vi ew of

th e en ti re re co rdon ap pe al , andaft er co ns id erat io n o f th e pa rti es ’ br ie fs , we affi rm

th e d is tri ctco urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t t o Defen da ntGam

be r. AFFIRMED.

12