[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 12-10189

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:08-cv-01757-RLV

TONY L. KIGHT, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

IPD PRINTING & DISTRIBUTING, INC.,

 Defendant,

R.R. DONNELLEY & SONS COMPANY, 

f.k.a. IPD Printing Company, 

 Defendant-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

________________________

(July 3, 2013)

Case: 12-10189 Date Filed: 07/03/2013 Page: 1 of 3 
2

Before CARNES, BARKETT and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Tony Kight, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s orders 

denying his self-styled motions for a new trial, continuance for new trial, and 

motion for reconsideration, following the entry of summary judgment, and 

untimely appeal thereof, in his employment discrimination action brought under 42 

U.S.C. § 2000e-2. On appeal, Kight argues that the court erroneously entered 

summary judgment against him, but does not raise any arguments challenging the 

basis for the more recent orders designated in his notice of appeal. After thorough 

review, we affirm.

An appellate court has jurisdiction to review only those judgments, orders, 

or portions thereof that are specified in the appellant’s notice of appeal. Hill v. 

BellSouth Telecomm., Inc., 364 F.3d 1308, 1313 (11th Cir. 2004); see also

Fed.R.App.P. 3(c) (requiring that a notice of appeal “designate the judgment, order 

or part thereof being appealed from”). A legal claim or argument not 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). 

Here, liberally construed, Kight’s appellate brief contains no discernible 

challenge to the orders designated in his notice of appeal. Because the validity of 

the district court’s earlier order granting summary judgment against Kight is not 

Case: 12-10189 Date Filed: 07/03/2013 Page: 2 of 3 
3

within the scope of this appeal, and Kight has failed to set forth any arguments 

related to the denial of his motion for reconsideration, motions for new trial, or 

order barring him from filing future pleadings, he has abandoned all issues relevant 

to this appeal. But in any event, even if we were to consider an appeal of these 

district court orders, it would have no merit since the district court did not abuse its 

discretion in reaching its conclusions. Accordingly, we affirm.

1

AFFIRMED.

 1 Nevertheless, we DENY the motion for sanctions filed by J.R. Donnelley & Sons Co. 

(“Donnelley”). We recognize that we may, upon a motion, award just damages and single or 

double costs to the appellee if an appeal is frivolous. Fed.R.App.P. 38. But we have been 

reluctant to impose sanctions against a pro se appellant, even where the appeal is clearly 

frivolous. See e.g., Woods v. Internal Revenue Serv., 3 F.3d 403, 404 (11th Cir. 1993); Hyslep 

v. United States, 765 F.2d 1083, 1084 (11th Cir. 1985). In light of Kight’s pro se status, and 

because Donnelley has not identified extenuating circumstances similar to those that were 

present in past instances where we have awarded sanctions against a pro se appellant, we decline 

to award sanctions here.

Case: 12-10189 Date Filed: 07/03/2013 Page: 3 of 3