[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 13-14822

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 5:13-cv-00029-ACC-PRL

ANTHONY T. BARRIOS, 

Individually, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

REGIONS BANK, 

d.b.a. Regions Mortgage, 

 Defendant - Appellee,

ANY AND ALL UNKNOWN PARTIES,

claiming by, through under and against the herein named individual who are

not known to be dead or alive, whether said unknown parties may claim an 

interest as spouses, heirs, devisees, grantees or other claimants, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case: 13-14822 Date Filed: 07/21/2014 Page: 1 of 4 
2

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(July 21, 2014)

Before ROSENBAUM, ANDERSON and COX, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

The Plaintiff Anthony Barrios challenges on appeal the district court’s order 

granting Region Bank’s motion for sanctions.1

 Barrios filed this diversity case 

asserting a quiet title action under Florida law. Throughout the litigation, the 

district court repeatedly observed that the allegations presented in the complaint 

were frivolous and that Barrios’s counsel’s performance fell “woefully below the 

level of practice expected before this or any Court.” (R. 31 at 3; R. 36 at 1–2; R. 

40 at 2; R. 46 at 3; R. 52 at 2.) Despite these observations, Barrios continued to 

litigate the case. At one point in the litigation, the district court found that 

Barrios’s counsel asserted an unfounded “serious medical emergency” in order to

justify an emergency motion for extension of time. (R. 52 at 10–11.)

As a result of these events, Regions Bank filed a motion for sanctions under 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. (R. 47.) Barrios did not file a response to the motion. The 

 1 Although not entirely clear, some parts of Barrios’s brief seem to challenge the district 

court’s order dismissing the action. However, Barrios’s notice of appeal only appeals from the 

“[o]rder adopting and confirming the Report and Recommendations approving sanctions in favor 

of Defendants Regions Bank.” And, Barrios has appealed the district court’s judgment

dismissing the action in a separate appeal: Barrios v. Regions Bank, 11th Cir. No. 13-13100.

Case: 13-14822 Date Filed: 07/21/2014 Page: 2 of 4 
3

district court referred the motion to a magistrate judge. (R. 50.) The magistrate 

judge issued a report and recommendation recounting in detail the history of the 

litigation. (R. 52.) The report and recommendation concluded that sanctions were 

appropriate, but reduced the requested amount from $25,803.44 to $14,892.62. 

(Id.) After receiving no objections, the district court adopted the report and 

recommendation and directed the clerk to enter a $14,892.62 judgment jointly 

against Barrios and his attorney.2

 (R. 55.)

We review a district court’s order of sanctions under Rule 11 for an abuse of 

discretion. Kaplan v. DaimlerChrysler, A.G., 331 F.3d 1251, 1255 (11th Cir. 

2003).

On appeal, Barrios contends that sanctions were improper because his claim

was not frivolous and because sanctions were procedurally improper under Florida 

state law. However, Barrios has waived these arguments by failing to present them 

in response to the motion for sanctions. To preserve an argument for appeal, the 

argument must have been raised at the trial court if the party had an opportunity to 

do so. Iraola & CIA, SA v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 325 F.3d 1274, 1284–85 

(“Failure to raise an issue, objection or theory of relief in the first instance to the 

trial court generally is fatal. It is the general rule, of course, that a federal appellate 

 2 Barrios did file one document between the filing of the magistrate judge’s report and 

recommendation and the district court’s order adopting the report and recommendation. The 

district court ordered this document stricken. Barrios does not contend that the district court 

erred by striking this document.

Case: 13-14822 Date Filed: 07/21/2014 Page: 3 of 4 
4

court does not consider an issue not passed upon below.” (quotations omitted)). 

Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by granting Regions 

Bank’s motion for sanctions.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 13-14822 Date Filed: 07/21/2014 Page: 4 of 4