FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T AUGUST 31, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 15 10 2 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 8 :1 0- cv -0 07 01 -SDM- TBM RONALD SPRINGMAN, anin di vi du al , ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff - App el la nt , ve rs us CITY OF VENICE, a m un ic ip al co rp or at io n, BRETT W . W OODW ORTH, anin di vi du al , TROY CREPEAU, Sg t., anin di vi du al , JULIE WILL IAMS, anin di vi du al , ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt s - Ap pe ll ees .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ 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 F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Au gu st31 , 20 11 )Befo re HULL, MARTIN an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es .

PER CURI AM: Pl ai nt iff Ro na ldSp rin gm anap pe al s t he di st ric t co urt’s d is m is sa l o f hi s 4 2 U.S.C. § 1 98 3 a ct io n a ga in stfou r de fen da nt s- ap pe ll ees : the Cit y of Ve ni ce, Fl or id a, it s p ol ic e ch ie f Ju li e Will iam s, an d p ol ic e o ffi cers Bret t W. W oo dwo rth
an d S gt . Troy Crep eau . Spri ng m anals o app eal s t he di stric t co urt’s d en ia l o f hi s Fed eral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 6 0( b) m ot io n t o v acat e th e d is tri ctco urt’s di sm is sa l o rd er. Afte r rev ie w, we affi rm . I. BACKG ROUND A. Spri ng m an ’s Firs t La w su it In20 09 indi st ric t co urt, Sp rin gm anfil eda co m pl ai ntag ai ns t the fou r ab ov e de fen da nt s, as well as S pr in gm an ’s nei gh bo r Mar ga retSch rei be r. Spr in gm an ’s
co m pl ai ntaro se fro m

hi s M ay 15 , 20 08 arre stby V en ic e p ol ic e o ffi cers for di so rd erl y

co nduc t, a ch arg e th atwas e ve ntua ll y di sm is se d. Sp rin gm an ’s com

pl ai ntass ert ed , in te r al ia , (1) a st at e-l aw m al ic io us pr os ecu ti on cla im

ag ai ns t Sc hr ei be r an d (2 ) a § 19 83 cla im ag ai ns t the Cit y

of Ven ic e, W il li am s, Woo dwo rth , andCrep eau . As to th e § 19 83 cla im , Spr in gm an ’s
co m pl ai ntst at ed , witho utan y factua l el ab or at io n, tha t the de fen da nt s “ to ge th er

2with o th er p ers on s kno wn an d unkno wn . . . , hav e subjec te d [S pr in gm an ] to a

pa tt ernof c on du ctco ns is ti ng of . . . se ve ral in di vi du al act s o f vi ol en ce, in ti m id at io n, fa ls e arr es t, fa ls e acc us at io ns of c riminal co nduc t, fa ls e im pr is on m en t, an d m al ic io us pro se cu ti on .” On Oct ob er 2 7, 2 00 9, d efen da nt s C ity of Ve ni ce, Will ia m s, Woo dwo rth , an d C rep eaufil eda m ot io n t o d is m is s fo r fai lu re t o s ta te a cl ai m , or a lt ern at iv el y , a
m ot io n fo r m or e d efi ni te st at em en t. Thr ee d ay s l at er, the de fen da ntSch rei be r (the
ne ig hb or ) fi le d am ot io n t o d is mis s fo r la ckof ju ris di ct io n. Pl ai nt iff Sp rin gm an di d n otres po ndto th es e m ot io ns . On Nov em be r 25 , 20 09 , th e d is tri ctco urt i ss ue d
anord er n ot in g S pr in gm an ’s lac k o f res po ns e, tr eat in g t he m ot io ns as u no pp os ed , an d g ran ti ng th em . The d is tri ctco urt d is mis se d S pr in gm an ’s com pl ai ntwitho ut pr ejud ic e. On Dec em

be r 10 , 20 09 , Spr in gm anm ov edth e d is tri ctco urt t o re co ns id er i ts di sm is sa l o rd er an d p erm ithi m to fil e anam en de d c om

pl ai nt . Spri ng m an ’s m ot io n
m ad e n o a tt em

ptto ex pl ai n h is fai lu re t o re sp on d t o the de fen da nt s’ m ot io ns to di sm is s. OnDecem

be r 11 , 20 09 , th e d is tri ctco urt d en ie d S pr in gm an ’s m ot io n be cau se Sp rin gm andi d n otco m pl y with M id dl e Dis tri ctof F lo rid a Loc al Ru le 3.0 1( g) , requi rin g apa rty to c on fer wi th op po si ng co un se l b efo re fi li ng a m ot io n. B. Compla in t an d Am ende d Compla in t in Pres ent L aw su it 3On M arch 24 , 20 10 , Spr in gm anfil edth e in st an t l aws ui t ag ai ns t the same

fo urde fen da nt s: th e Ci ty of Ven ic e, W il li am s, Woo dwo rth an d C rep eau . Sp rin gm an , rep res en te d b y th e sa m e at to rn ey

who rep res en te d h im

inth e fi rs t la wsu it , ass ert edth e sa m e cl ai m s (e xc ep t the cla im ag ai ns t the ne ig hb orSch rei be r)
as he ha d i n t he fir stlaws ui t. OnJu ly 28, 2 01 0, b efo re the de fen da nt s fi le d a n an swe r, Sp rin gm anfil edanam en de d c om pl ai nt . Sp rin gm an ’s am en de d c om pl ai ntass ert s o nl y

a si ng le -co un t § 19 83 cla im , al le gi ng fal se arre stan d m al ic io us pro se cu ti on on a no is e o rd in an ce v io la ti on (Ap ril 19 , 20 08 ) an d asep arat e d is or de rly con du ctch arg e (Ma y 15 , 20 08 ). As t o th e n oi se ord in an ce v io la ti on , Spr in gm anall eg es he was a rres te d a ndlat er the ch arg e was di sm is se d. As t o t he di so rd erl y

co nduc t ch arg e, Sp rin gm anall eg es th at : (1 ) on or abo ut May 15, 2 00 8, Sp rin gm anwas a t h om e an d was pl ay in g arad io th atsaton hi s win do w si ll ; (2 ) Sp rin gm an ’s nei gh bo rs cal le d t he Veni ce Po li ce Dep art m en t, an d Offi cers W oo dwo rth an d C rep eauarri ve d a t Sp rin gm an ’s ho m e aro un d 7 :5 0 p .m .; (3 ) Sp rin gm an ’s nei gh bo r Sch rei be r to ldpo li ce tha t Sp rin gm anfreque nt ly play ed th e rad io , andth atda y

ha d p la y edth e rad io fro m 7: 26 a.m . un ti l the po li ce o ffi cers arri ve d; (4) Sch rei be r to ldOffic ers W oo dwo rth an d C rep eauth atwhen sh e ap pr oa ch edSp rin gm anab ou t the rad io , he r es po nd edwith apro fan e ep it he t; (5)
4Offi cer Woo dwo rth co ul d h ear S pr in gm an ’s rad io fro m th e st reetwhen he arri ve d; (6 ) Sp rin gm ansh owe d Off ic ers W oo dwo rth an d C rep eauwher e th e rad io was lo cat ed ; (7 ) Sp rin gm antal ke d t o Off ic ers W oo dwo rth an d C rep eauab ou t the
m us ic an d c on firm edhe was t o app ear i n c ou rt o n ano is e o rd in an ce v io la ti on in vo lv in g t he rad io ; (8 ) Offi cers W oo dwo rth an d C rep eauarre st edSp rin gm anfor di so rd erl y

co nduc t o n M ay

15 , 20 08 ; an d (9 ) Offi cers W oo dwo rth an d C rep eau di d n ottak e an y

de ci be l re ad in g t o m eas ur e th e n oi se lev el of S pr in gm an ’s rad io
. 1 Sp rin gm an ’s am en de d c om pl ai nt(as with h is pre vi ou s co m pl ai nt s) als o al le ge d i n aco nc lu so ry

fas hi onth atth e d efen da nt s “ subjec te d [S pr in gm an ] to a pa tt ernof c on du ctco ns is ti ng of i ll eg al ha ras sm en t, as saul t an d b at te ry , fal se im pr is on m en ts an d a rres ts an d m al ic io us pro se cu ti on ” an d t ha t the de fen dant s’

“ syste m at ic pa tt ernof c on du ctco ns is ts of s ev eral in di vi du al act s o f vi ol en ce, in ti m id at io n, fa ls e arr es t, fa ls e acc us at io ns of c riminal co nduc t, fa ls e im pr is on m en t, an d m al ic io us pro se cu ti on .” The am en de d c om pl ai ntall eg edth at atall rel ev an t t im es , W oo dwo rth an d C rep eauwere ac ti ng at t he di rect io n o f po li ce ch ie f W il li am s, an d t ha t the Cit y of Ve ni ce kne w or s ho ul d h av e kno wn o f

Springma n’s alleg ations about the disorderly conduct c harg e ar e not containe d in the 1 amende d complaint itself, but in Springman’s state -cour t motion t o dismiss the disorderly conduct c harg e, which Springman’s ame nded complaint attac hed and inc orpora ted by ref ere nce. 5th e act io ns by its em pl oyees b utfai le d t o t ak e an y st ep s t o h al t o r redres s t ho se act io ns . C. Dis m is sa l o f Am ende d Compla in t an d Mo tio n fo r Rel ie f fro m Ju dg m ent On Au gu st9, 2 01 0, the de fen da nt s m ov edto di sm is s t he am en de d
co m pl ai ntor, a lt ern at iv el y , fora m or e d efi ni te st at em en t. The de fen da nt s ar gu ed , am on g o th er thi ng s, tha t Sp rin gm an ’s am en de d c om pl ai ntfai le d t o s at is fy

th e pl ead in g s ta nd ardof F ed eral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 8 (a). Sp rin gm anag ai n fi le d
no res po ns e to th e d efen da nt s’ m ot io n t o d is m is s. On Au gu st31 , 20 10 , fiv e d ay s af te r th e res po ns e p eri odha d e laps ed , th e di st ric t co urt g ran te d t he de fen da nt s’ m ot io n t o d is m is s “ as un op po se d.” In d oi ng so , th e d is tri ctco urt n ot edth atSp rin gm anfai le d t o re sp on d t o t he de fen da nt s’
m ot io n t o d is m is s i n S pr in gm an ’s pre vi ou s l aws ui t as well as i n t he pre se nt la wsu it . Thu s, Sp rin gm anha d “ am pl e n ot ic e o f th e d ead li ne for res po nd in g t o a
m ot io n a ndy etrep eat ed ly fail [ed ] to co m pl y an d d il ig en tl y

pro se cu te th is act io n i n acco rdwith Lo cal Ru le s 3 .01 an d 3 .10 .” 2

Middle District of Florida L ocal Rule 3.01 provide s, inter alia, that e ach pa rty opposing a 2 motion shall file a response within 14 day s after service of the motion. M.D. Fla. R. 3.01(b)
. L ocal Rule 3.10 provide s, “Wheneve r it appea rs that any

case is not being dilig ently prosec uted the Court may , on motion of any party or on its own motion, enter an or der to show c ause why the ca se should not be dismissed, and if no satisfac tory cause is shown, the case may be dismiss ed by

the Court for wa

nt of prosec ution.” M.D. Fla . R. 3.10.

6On Se pt em be r 2, 2 01 0, Sp rin gm anfil eda m ot io n fo r rel ie f fro m th e d is tri ct
co urt’s d is m is sa l o rd er, p ur su an t t o F ed eral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 6 0( b) (1 ). In th e m ot io n, Sp rin gm an ’s cou ns el st at edth athe di d n otin te nt io na ll y di sr eg ardth e co urt’s t im e li mit at io ns , andth aton Aug us t 2 6, 2 01 0, h e tr ie d t o e le ctro ni cal ly file
a res po ns e to th e d efen da nt s’ m ot io n t o d is mis s b utev id en tl y “ erre d dur in g t he el ectro ni c fi li ng pro ces s.” Sp rin gm an ’s cou ns el was “ un de r pr es su re t o fi na li ze th e res po ns e, du e to ot he r de m an ds of h is sch edul e,” wh ic h “ m ay [ha ve ]
co nt rib ut edto th e err or .” Sp rin gm anatt ach eda pr op os edres po ns e to th e de fen da nt s’ m ot io n t o d is m is s, an d re qu es te d t ha t the di st ric t co urt v acat e th e di sm is sa l an d a ccep t Sp rin gm an ’s res po ns e b ecau se th e fai lu re t o fi le th e res po ns e was in adve rte ntan d t he de fen da nt s wo ul d n otbe pre jud ic edby the th en -s ev en -d ay de la y . The d efen da nt s o pp os edSp rin gm an ’s m ot io n. On Oct ob er 8 , 20 10 , th e d is tri ctco urt d en ie d S pr in gm an ’s m ot io n. Th e di st ric t co urt co nc lu de d tha t Sp rin gm an ’s cou ns el ’s “ m is ta ke , in adve rte nc e, or care le ss ne ss ” h ad“res ul te d i n d el ay , in co nv en ie nc e, an d e xp en se ,” an d c ou ns el ’s in ab il it y to co m pl y with t he Co urt’s ru le s “ m eri ts no len ie nc e.” Fu rth er, the di st ric t co urt co nc lu de d tha t, “ ev enif c ou ns el est ab li sh edgo odcau se for pe rm it ti ng anun ti m el y

res po ns e, th is act io n wo ul d n on ethe le ss de se rv e p ro m pt di sm is sa l, b ecau se ne it he r th e fac tu al all eg at io ns of t he am en de d c om pl ai ntno r th e 7pl ai nt iff’s res po ns e in op po si ti on to di sm is sa l d em on st rat e th atth e p la in ti ff

po ss es se s an act io nabl e cl ai m un de r 28 U.S.C. § 1 98 3.” The di st ric t co urt
ex am in edth e co nt en ti on s i n S pr in gm an ’s am en de d c om pl ai ntan d c on cl ud ed : [Sp rin gm an ] ut te rly fai ls to al le ge fac ts supp or tin g a Secti on 19 83 cl ai m . Rat he r, th e am en de d co m pl ai nt i s r e p le te with le ga l co nc lu si on s an d co nt ai ns rel at iv el y few va gu e factua l al le ga ti on s . In fact , ne ithe r th e am en de d com

pl ai nt no r th e res po ns e to th e m ot io n to di sm is s pr ov id es en ou gh in fo rm at io n to de te rm in e wha t, if a ny, ci rcu m st an ce co ul d supp ort Sp rin gm an ’s cl ai m of a co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n by th e de fen da nt s. Fi na ll y , as t o t he cla im

ag ai ns t the City

of Ve ni ce, the di st ric t co urt n ot edth atth e am en de d c om

pl ai ntfai le d t o a ll eg e fac ts set ti ng forth a ba si s fo r m un ic ip al li ab il it y . Accor di ng ly, th e d is tri ctco urt d en ie d S pr in gm an ’s m ot io n t o v acat e th e or de r di sm is si ng th e am en de d c om pl ai nt . Spri ng m anap pe al ed
. II . DISCUSSI ON Fed eral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 6 0( b) (1 ) pr ov id es th at“ [o ]n m ot io n andjus t te rm s, the co urt m ay

rel ie ve a pa rty or i ts leg al rep res en ta ti ve fro m a fi na l jud gm en t, o rd er, o r pr oc eed in g fo r . . . mis take , in adve rte nc e, su rp ris e, or ex cu sabl e n eg le ct .” Fed . R. Civ . P. 60 (b )(1 ). Spr in gm anarg ue s t he di st ric t co urt 3 ab us edit s d is cret io n i n re fu si ng to va cat e th e d is m is sa l o rd er b ecau se Sp rin gm an ’s

We reviewa district cour t’s denial of a

Rule 60(b)(1) motion for abuse of discretion. 3 Conn. St ate De ntal Ass’n v. Anthem He alth Plans, Inc., 591 F .3d 1337, 1355 (11th Cir. 2009). 8fai lu re t o re sp on d (1 ) res ul te d fr om ex cu sabl e n eg le ct , (2) res ul te d i n o nl y a br ie f de la y inth e p ro ceed in gs , and(3) di d n otpre jud ic e th e d efen dant s. See W al te r v. Bl ue Cro ss & Bl ue Sh ie ldUni te d o f W is ., 18 1 F .3d11 98 , 12 01 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ) (n ot in g t ha t ex cu sabl e n eg le ctde te rm in at io n und er Ru le 60 (b ) is equi tabl e in qu iry,
an d fo ur fact or s t o c on si de r are da ng er o f pr ejud ic e, le ng thof d el ay , reas on for de la y , andwhet he r Ru le 60 (b ) m ov an t ac te d i n g oo d fa it h)
. W e n eedno t co ns id er Sp rin gm an ’s exc us ab le ne gl ectarg um en t, h owe ve r, be cau se we co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt’s al te rn at iv e h ol di ng —tha t Sp rin gm an ’s am en de d c om pl ai ntsh ou ldbe di sm is se d i n a ny even t fo r fai lu re t o st at e a cl ai m

—i s co rrec t. 4 Fed eral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 8 (a) re qu ire s t ha t a c om pl ai ntco nt ai n “ a sh ort an d p la inst at em en t o f th e cl ai m sh owi ng th atth e p le ad er i s en ti tl edto rel ie f.” Fed . R. Civ . P. 8(a )(2 ). Whi le Ru le 8(a ) do es no t re qu ire “ de ta il edfactua l al le ga ti on s,” i t “ requi res m or e th anlab el s an d c on cl us io ns , anda fo rm ul ai c reci ta ti on of t he ele m en ts of acau se of a ct io n wi ll no t d o.” Bel l At l. Co rp . v. Twom bl y , 55 0 U.S. 5 44 , 55 5, 1 27 S. Ct. 1 95 5, 1 96 4- 65 (20 07 ) (ci ta ti on s o m it te d)
.
We reviewde novo a district c ourt’s conc lusion, pursuant to Fede ral Rule of Civil 4 Procedur e 12(b) (6), that a complaint fails to state a c laim upon which re lief ca n be grante d. Hopper v. Solvay Pharm., Inc., 588 F .3d 1318, 1324 (11th Cir. 2009), ce rt. denied, 130 S. Ct. 3465 (2010). Although the district court did not expressly cite Rule 12(b) (6), that r

ule clea rly serve d as the ba sis for the district cour t’s order
. 9“ Factua l al le ga ti on s m us t b e en ou gh to rai se a ri gh t t o re li ef ab ov e th e sp ecu la ti ve le ve l, o n t he ass um

pt io n t ha t al l the all eg at io ns inth e co m pl ai ntare tru e . . . .” Id. at55 5, 1 27 S. Ct. at19 65 (ci ta ti on s an d fo ot no te om it te d)
. Thu s, “ [t]o s urvi ve a m ot io n t o d is mis s, a c om pl ai ntm us t co nt ai n s uf

fic ie nt factua l m at te r, acce pt edas t ru e, to ‘ st at e a cl ai m to rel ie f th atis pl au si bl e o n i ts face .’ ” Ash cro ft v . Iqb al , — U.S. —, 1 29 S. Ct. 1 93 7, 1 94 9 (2 00 9) (qu ot in g Twom bl y , 55 0 U.S. at57 0, 1 27 S. Ct. at19 55 ). “A cla im ha s fa ci al pl au si bi li ty 5 whe n the pl ai nt iff

pl ead s fa ctua l co nt en t tha t al lo ws the co urt t o draw the
reas on ab le in fere nc e th atth e d efen da ntis li ab le forth e m is co nduc t al le ge d.” Id. Ru le 8(a ) “ do es no t unl oc k t he do or s o f di sc ov ery fo r a p la in ti ff arm edwith
no th in g m or e th anco nc lu si on s.” Id . at 1 95 0. Here, Sp rin gm an ’s § 1 98 3 c la im is ba se d a lm os t en ti rel y

on co nc lu so ry al le ga ti on s, an d t he few fac ts Sp rin gm anall eg es inth e am en de d c om pl ai ntdo no t st at e a p laus ib le cla im

forrel ie f. Accep ti ng Sp rin gm an ’s factua l al le ga ti on s as tru e, th e am en de d c om

pl ai ntde m on strat es , as t o t he May 200 8 d is or de rly con du ct
arre st , th atth e d efen dantoff ic ers kn ew: ( 1) Sp rin gm anha d ape nd in g n oi se or di na nc e v io la ti on ch arg e, bu t co nt in ue d t o s ethi s ra di o i n h is win do w andpl ay it Contrary to the defe ndants’ conte ntion, there is no long er a ny heightened plea ding 5 standard f or § 1983 cla ims ag ainst individuals entitl ed to qualified immunity . Randall v. Scott, 610 F.3d 701, 710 ( 11th Cir. 2010). 10so lo ud ly it co ul d b e h eardfro m th e st reet ; (2 ) Sp rin gm anha d b een pl ay in g t he rad io inhi s wi nd ow fo r m or e th an12 ho ur s t ha t d ay ; (3 ) m ul ti pl e n ei gh bo rs co m pl ai ne d t o p ol ic e ab ou t the no is e; an d (4 ) Sp rin gm anres po nd edab us iv el y whe n o ne ne ig hb orco m

pl ai ne d t o h im . As to th e n oi se ord in an ce arres t, Sp rin gm anall eg es no fact s ex cep t the arres t an d e ve ntua l d is m is sa l o f th e ch arg es . The se fact s fa ll far s ho rt o f st at in g apl au si bl e cl ai m th atth e arr es ts or pr os ecu ti on s v io la te d S pr in gm an ’s con st itut io na l ri gh ts . See, e.g ., Grid er v . Cit y of Aub urn, 6 18 F.3d12 40 , 12 57 & n .25 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) (s ta ti ng th atpo li ce of fic ers are en ti tl edto qu al ifi edimm un it y on cla im s o f fal se arre stan d m al ic io us pr os ecu ti on if t he re i s ev enarg uabl e p ro babl e cau se ba se d o n t he fact s kno wn t o th e o ffi cers , for“ la w enf

or cem en t o ffi ci al s wh o re as on ab ly butm is ta ke nl y co nc lu de th atpro babl e cau se is pre se ntare en ti tl edto imm un it y ”). The factth at th e ch arg es ag ai ns t Sp rin gm anwere ev en tu al ly dis m is se d i n n o way ind ic at es th at of fic ers lac ke d a rg uabl e p ro babl e cau se at t he ti m e o f th e arr es ts . See Ho well v. Tan ne r, 65 0 F .2d61 0, 6 15 (5t h C ir. Un itB Ju ly 198 1) (“ Onc e p ro babl e cau se ha s be enest ab li sh ed , th e le ga li ty of th e arr es t i s n otaffe ct edby . . . a subs eque nt di sm is sa l o r acqui tt al of t he ch arg es .”). Becaus e Sp rin gm an ’s am en de d c om pl ai nt , atm os t, “pl ead s fa ct s t ha t ar e m erel y co ns is te ntwith” th e d efen da nt s’ li ab il it y , “ it

11st op s s ho rt o f th e li ne be twee n p os si bi li ty andpl au si bi li ty of en ti tl em en t t o re li ef.”

Iqba l, 1 29 S. Ct. at19 49 (qu ot at io n m ark s o mit te d)
. Bec au se th e am en de d c om pl ai ntfai ls to st at e a cl ai m for rel ie f, th e d is tri ct
co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n d en y in g S pr in gm an ’s m ot io n t o v acat e th e di sm is sa l o rd er. 6 AFFIRMED.

Although Springman’s propose d response to the defe ndants’ motion to dism iss requested 6 leave to amend if the a

mended c omplaint were deeme d not to state a cla im, we find, on the fa cts of this case , that the district court did not abuse its discre tion in not permitt ing Springman an opportunity

to file another

complaint. See Corsello v. L incar e, Inc., 428 F .3d 1008, 1014 (11th Cir. 2005) (“T he district cour t . . . need not allow a

n amendment ( 1) whe re the re ha s been undue delay , bad fa ith, dilatory

motive, or repe ated f

ailure to c ure de ficienc ies by amendments previously

allowed; (2) wher e allowingamendment would c ause undueprejudiceto the opposing party ; or (3) where amendment would be futile.” (quotation marks omitted)). 12