[DO NOT PUBLISH]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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 12 40 0 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :1 0- cv -0 20 66 -CC ASAR KHUFU EL, ANNA SANDE RS, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff s- App el la nt s,
ve rs us PLATINUM HOME MORTGAGE SERVICES, INC., CENTURY MORTGAGE CORP., CITIM ORTGAGE, INC., MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEM, FEDERAL HOME LOA

N MORTGAGE CORP., ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt s- App el le es .

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

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ern Dis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Sep te m be r 24 , 20 12 ) Case: 11-12400 Date Filed: 09/24/2012 Page: 1 of 3Befo re BARKETT, PRYOR an d B LACK, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

PER CURI AM: Asa r Khu fuEl an d An naSan de rs (App el la nt s) , pro ceed in g p ro se, app eal th e d is tri ctco urt’s d is m is sa l o f th ei r co m pl ai ntpu rs ua ntto Fed .R.Ci v.P . 12 (b )(6 ) fo r fai lu re t o s ta te a cl ai m . On ap pe al , App el la nt s d o n otad dr es s the reas on s fo r th e d is tri ctco urt’s d is m is sa l o f th ei r co m pl ai nt . Ins te ad , App el lant s ar gu e th at Ci ti Mo rtg ag e la ck edst an di ng to in it ia te for ecl os ur e p ro ceed in gs , andth atth e di st ric t co urt erredby refus in g t o e nt er a d efau ltjud gm en t ag ai ns t Ce ntury Mo rtg ag e Co rp . (Cen tu ry ). App el la nt s’ com

pl ai ntdi d n otall eg e an y

fact s t o s up po rt t he ir a rg um en t tha t Ci ti Mo rtg ag e la ck edst an di ng to st artth e fo recl os ur e p ro ceed in gs . Thei r
co nc lu so ry

all eg at io ns were i ns uf

fic ie ntto st at e a cl ai m . Se e Ash cr of t v. Iq ba l , 55 6 U.S. 6 62 , 67 8- 79 (20 09 ). As fo r App el la nt s’ ot he r cl ai m s, Ap pe ll an ts ha ve ab an do ne d t he m

by fail in g t o a dd res s t he m in th ei r op en in g b rie f. Se e Gre en br ia r, Ltd. v. Ci tyof

Ala ba st er , 88 1 F .2d15 70 , 15 73 n.6 (11 th Cir . 19 89 ). W e rev ie w forab us e o f di sc ret io n adi st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f a m ot io n fo r de fau ltjud gm en t. Mit ch el l v. Br ow n & W il li ams on To ba cco Co rp ., 29 4 F .3d 13 09 , 13 16 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ). A party’ s d efau ltdo es no t b y it se lf wa rran t the en try of a de fau ltjud gm en t u nl es s t he re i s “ a su ffi ci en t b as is in th e p le ad in gs forth e 2 Case: 11-12400 Date Filed: 09/24/2012 Page: 2 of 3jud gm en t en te red .” Nish ima ts u C on str. Co . v. Hou s. Na t’l

Ban k, 51 5 F .2d12 00 , 12 06 (5t h C ir. 1 97 5)
. Cen tury ’s fai lu re t o a ns wer the co m pl ai ntdi d n otrequi re 1 th e d is tri ctco urt t o e nt er a d efau ltjud gm en t b ecau se App el la nt s’ com pl ai ntfai le d to pro vi de a pr op er b as is forjud gm en t ag ai ns t Ce ntury . Accor di ng ly, th e d is tri ct
co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n wh enitrefu se d t o e nt er a d efau ltjud gm en t ag ai ns t Ce ntury . AFFIRMED.

In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc) , this Court 1 adopted as binding prec edent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to close of business on September 30, 1981. 3

Case: 11-12400 Date Filed: 09/24/2012 Page: 3 of 3