[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 20-11984

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 8:19-cv-02571-VMC-CPT

MAXINE MCTIZIC,

individually and on behalf of herself and 

all others similarly situated, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 versus

BAYERISCHE MOTOREN WERKE AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, 

BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, 

 Defendants - Appellees.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(January 22, 2021)

USCA11 Case: 20-11984 Date Filed: 01/22/2021 Page: 1 of 5
2

Before WILSON, MARTIN, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Maxine McTizic, proceeding pro se, appeals the dismissal with prejudice of 

her second amended complaint. She argues the district court erred in dismissing 

the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. She also argues the court 

abused its discretion in denying her another opportunity to amend. After careful 

consideration, we affirm.

I.

As relevant to this appeal, McTizic filed a second amended complaint 

alleging that defendants, BMW of North America and Bayerische Motoren Werke

Aktiengesellschaft, knowingly sold her a defective 2012 BMW. The district court 

previously dismissed McTizic’s original complaint and first amended complaint 

for failing to establish subject matter jurisdiction, among other pleading 

deficiencies. The district court then gave McTizic “one final opportunity to 

amend.” Upon review of the second amended complaint, the magistrate judge 

issued a report and recommendation (“R&R”) that also recommended dismissal for 

lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Despite being informed of the time period for 

filing objections to the R&R and the consequences for failing to do so, McTizic did 

not object to the R&R. 

USCA11 Case: 20-11984 Date Filed: 01/22/2021 Page: 2 of 5
3

The district court adopted the R&R and dismissed the second amended 

complaint with prejudice. McTizic appealed. 

II.

This Court ordinarily reviews de novo a district court’s dismissal of a 

complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Barbour v. Haley, 471 F.3d 1222, 

1225 (11th Cir. 2006). However, where a party fails to object to a magistrate 

judge’s R&R in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), that party 

“waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on 

unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions if the party was informed of the time 

period for objecting and the consequences on appeal for failing to object.” 11th 

Cir. R. 3-1. In the absence of a proper objection, we may review for plain error,

but only “if necessary in the interests of justice.” Id. Additionally, although we

read pro se briefs liberally, issues not briefed are deemed abandoned. Timson v. 

Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). A district court’s 

judgment will be affirmed if an appellant fails to challenge each of the court’s 

independent, alternative grounds for its ruling. Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. 

Co., 739 F.3d 678, 680 (11th Cir. 2014).

The denial of leave to amend a complaint is reviewed for an abuse of 

discretion. In re Engle Cases, 767 F.3d 1082, 1109 (11th Cir. 2014).

USCA11 Case: 20-11984 Date Filed: 01/22/2021 Page: 3 of 5
4

III.

We conclude McTizic has not properly preserved her challenge to the 

dismissal of the second amended complaint. To begin, McTizic did not object to 

the R&R, which recommended that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice for 

lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Thus, she has waived the right to challenge that 

issue on appeal. See 11th Cir. R. 3-1. Moreover, McTizic does not address on 

appeal how the complaint establishes subject matter jurisdiction. As a result, she

has abandoned any challenge to the dismissal of the complaint on that basis. See

Timson, 518 F.3d at 874 (“[I]ssues not briefed on appeal by a pro se litigant are 

deemed abandoned[.]”). As such, we must affirm the district court’s judgment on 

that ground. See Sapuppo, 739 F.3d at 680 (“When an appellant fails to challenge 

properly on appeal one of the grounds on which the district court based its 

judgment, he is deemed to have abandoned any challenge of that ground, and it 

follows that the judgment is due to be affirmed.”).

Finally, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying 

further leave to amend. The court gave McTizic two opportunities to amend, and

she has not shown how additional amendment would cure the pleading defects it 

identified. See In re Engle, 767 F.3d at 1108–09 (“[A] motion for leave to amend 

may appropriately be denied . . . where amendment would be futile.” (quotation 

USCA11 Case: 20-11984 Date Filed: 01/22/2021 Page: 4 of 5
5

marks omitted)). Therefore, we affirm the dismissal with prejudice of the second 

amended complaint. 

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 20-11984 Date Filed: 01/22/2021 Page: 5 of 5