[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 17-12289

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 7:17-cv-00007-HL

MAE SINGLETARY, 

VICTOR MEYERS, 

DEBBIE MEYERS, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

RURAL ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION, 

ED PEACE, USDA, 

JESSICA KANG, Tift Regional Medical Center, 

ALPHA RAY, Tift Regional Medical Center, 

HOUSTON SHAULTZ, Tift County Code of Enforcement, 

KATHY ABERSON, Tift Regional Medical Center, 

Defendants-Appellees.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Georgia

________________________

(March 8, 2019)

Case: 17-12289 Date Filed: 03/08/2019 Page: 1 of 5 
2

Before BRANCH, GRANT, and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Plaintiffs Mae Singletary, Victor Meyers, and Debbie Meyers appeal the 

dismissal of their pro se complaint alleging harassment, damages, and pain and 

suffering related to housing and medical issues. We affirm. On these facts, the 

district court’s dismissal of the complaint—which fell far short of federal pleading 

requirements—was supported by our precedents. Plaintiffs have also failed to 

raise any argument regarding the dismissal on appeal. 

I.

Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in the Middle District of Georgia against the United 

States Department of Agriculture and one of its employees, three individuals 

associated in some way with Tift Regional Medical Center, and a Tift County code 

enforcement officer. They filled out a “Complaint for a Civil Case” form, but the 

information they entered on the form shed no light on the nature of their claims, 

the actions of the defendants giving rise to those claims, or the basis for federal 

court jurisdiction. 

The district court held a “pro se status conference,” during which it informed 

Singletary and Victor Meyers1 that their complaint was “not drawn up properly,” 

 1 Debbie Meyers, who lives in New York, did not attend.

Case: 17-12289 Date Filed: 03/08/2019 Page: 2 of 5 
3

and that they could not hope to succeed without a lawyer. The court strongly 

encouraged them to hire an attorney and offered to continue the case to give them 

an opportunity to do so. Plaintiffs nonetheless chose to proceed without an 

attorney. 

That same day, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which consisted of a 

copy of their original complaint and some letters and other material that they had 

apparently intended to file along with their original complaint. None of the 

material attached to their amended complaint provided a basis for federal 

jurisdiction or clarified either the nature of their claims or the specific acts of the 

defendants that gave rise to their suit. 

Two months after plaintiffs filed their amended complaint, the district court

instructed them that it was still insufficient and ordered them to amend again, 

specifically directing them to provide (1) the basis for federal jurisdiction; and 

(2) facts sufficient to state a claim for relief, including the specific conduct of each 

defendant that entitled them to relief, dates and locations of the alleged wrongful 

conduct, and the harm that each plaintiff suffered as a result. The court warned 

plaintiffs that the failure to amend their complaint would result in dismissal for 

failure to prosecute.

Plaintiffs did not file a second amended complaint. Instead, they each filed a 

notarized letter addressed to the district court judge. None of the letters complied 

Case: 17-12289 Date Filed: 03/08/2019 Page: 3 of 5 
4

with the district court’s instructions to remedy the deficiencies in the amended 

complaint. Faced with a complaint that did not meet even the most basic pleading 

requirements and plaintiffs who refused to amend, the district court dismissed the

amended complaint for failure to prosecute, just as it said it would do. This appeal 

followed. 

II.

The dismissal was likely well within the district court’s authority and 

discretion. See Jackson v. Bank of America, N.A., 898 F.3d 1348, 1358–59 (11th 

Cir. 2018) (affirming the district court’s dismissal with prejudice where plaintiffs 

failed to correct deficiencies in their rambling, incomprehensible “shotgun” 

complaint after being given an opportunity to do so); see also Moon v. Newsome, 

863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989) (“While dismissal is an extraordinary remedy, 

dismissal upon disregard of an order, especially where the litigant has been 

forewarned, generally is not an abuse of discretion.”). But we need not reach this 

issue, because plaintiffs have not actually challenged the dismissal on appeal.

In place of the brief required by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28 and 

Eleventh Circuit Rule 28-1, each plaintiff submitted a letter to this Court. None of 

the letters address the district court’s dismissal order; instead, plaintiffs state that 

they are seeking three million dollars in damages and make vague references to

harm that they have suffered due to the (still unspecified) actions of the defendants. 

Case: 17-12289 Date Filed: 03/08/2019 Page: 4 of 5 
5

In other words, plaintiffs have waived or abandoned any argument that they might 

have made on appeal.

“[T]he law is by now well settled in this Circuit that a legal claim or 

argument that has not been briefed before the court is deemed abandoned and its 

merits will not be addressed.” Access Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 

1324, 1330 (11th Cir. 2004). And while we construe briefs filed by pro se litigants 

liberally, even pro se litigants must follow the rules. Albra v. Advan, Inc., 490 

F.3d 826, 829 (11th Cir. 2007); see Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th 

Cir. 2008) (issues not briefed by a litigant—even one proceeding pro se—are 

deemed abandoned). 

“[P]assing references” to an issue in an appellant’s opening brief are not 

enough to bring the issue before this Court on appeal. Sapuppo v. Allstate 

Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 681 (11th Cir. 2014). “If an argument is not fully 

briefed (let alone not presented at all) to the Circuit Court, evaluating its merits 

would be improper both because the appellants may control the issues they raise on 

appeal, and because the appellee would have no opportunity to respond to it. 

Indeed, evaluating an issue on the merits that has not been raised in the initial brief 

would undermine the very adversarial nature of our appellate system.” Access 

Now, Inc., 385 F.3d at 1330. 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 17-12289 Date Filed: 03/08/2019 Page: 5 of 5