F ILED U.S. CO URT OF AP P EALS ELEVENTH CI RCUIT Novem ber 3, 2 008 THO MAS K . KAHN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 8- 13 06 1 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 8- 00 00 1- CV-4 ANGELA DENISE THOMAS,
Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us A. MARK LEE, COMM ISSI ONERS OF EFFINGHAM COUNTY, Defen da nt s- App el le es .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So ut he rnDis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (No ve m ber 3 , 20 08 ) Befo re HULL, W ILSON an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:Pl ai nt iff Ang el a Den is e Tho m as ap pe al s t he di st ric t co urt’s o rd er d is m is si ng as ti m e-b arre d h er fe de ral du e p ro ces s cl ai m s, b ro ug htpu rs ua ntto 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 3. Aft er re vi ew, we affi rm . I. BACKG ROUND A. Ter m in at io n o f Tho m as Tho m as was e m

pl oyed as anadm in is tra ti ve ass is ta ntto de fen da ntA. Mark Lee, th e So li ci to r Gen eral of Eff in gh am Co un ty. On J un e 2 1, 2 00 5, Lee pe rs on al ly info rm edTho m as th atsh e was term in at edform ak in g d is pa rag in g rem ark s ab ou t co un ty offi ci al s an d i m pr op erl y us in g t he co un ty’ s co m

pu te rs . Tho m as imm ed ia te ly requ es te d ahe ari ng . Lee de ni edTho m as ’s reque ston gr ou nd s t ha t s he was n ota m eri t s y st em em pl oyee subjec t t o the co un ty’ s pe rs on ne l ru le s. Onth e sa m e d ay , Lee se ntTho m as a le tt er co nf irming he r te rm in at io n. Tho m as subm it te d aform al writ te n re qu es t, d at edJu ne 21 , 20 05 , to Lee an d Effi ng ha m

Co un ty’ s h um anres ou rces di rect orto ap pe al he r di sc ha rg e. On J un e 22 , 20 05 , Lee se ntTho m as an othe r le tt er re it erat in g a ndelabo rat in g upo n t he gr ou nd s fo r he r di sm is sa l. OnJune 29 , 20 05 , Tho m as sen t a s eco ndap pe al reque st , st at in g t ha t i f sh e d idno t re cei ve a res po ns e wit hi n fi ve da y s, s he wou ld de em th e ap pe al de ni ed . Tho m as rece iv edno res po ns e to he r se co ndreque st . 2B. Tho m as ’s Unemploy m ent Co m pens at io n Cla im

Tho m as so ug htun em

pl oym en t co m

pe ns at io n b en efi ts fro m

th e Geo rg ia Dep artm en t o f Lab or(“ GDOL”). On Ju ly 13, 2 00 5, an adm in is tra ti ve off ic er de ni edTho m as be ne fit s. Th om as ap pe al edan d, o n J anua ry 26 , 20 07 , GDOL’ s Bo ardof R ev ie w affi rm edth e d en ia l o f be ne fit s. Tho m as ap pe al edGDOL’ s d eci si onto th e Supe rio r Co urt o f Effi ng ha m Co un ty. On J un e 5 , 20 07 , th e Supe rio r Co urt g ran te d p art ia l s umm ary jud gm en t,
co nc lu di ng th at : (1 ) Tho m as was s ub ject t o Eff

in gh am Co un ty civ il servi ce po li ci es , andhe r te rm in at io n was co nt rary to tho se po li ci es be cau se Lee d idno t ha ve th e au th or it y

to di sc ha rg e Tho m as witho utap pr ov al fro m th e hum an res ou rces de partment a ndth e co un ty adm in is tra to r; a nd(2) Tho m as was e nt it le d t o a d is ch arg e h eari ng to de te rm in e whe th er s he co ul d b e d is ch arg edforcau se . That act io n re m ai ns pe nd in g t o d et erm in e th e am ou ntof u ne m pl oym en t co m

pe ns at io n Tho m as is du e. C. Tho m as ’s § 1 98 3 Act io n On No ve m

be r 30 , 20 07 , Tho m as fil edth is sep arat e act io n i n t he Supe rio r Co urt o f Effi ng ha m

Co un ty agai ns t Lee an d Eff in gh am Co un ty Boardof Co m m is si on ers . Tho m as ’s com pl ai ntass ert ed , purs ua ntto § 1 98 3, a c la im th at he r du e p ro ces s ri gh ts were v io la te d wh ensh e was term in at edwitho uta he ari ng . 3The co m

pl ai ntals o s ou gh t a wri t o f m an da m us pu rs ua ntto O.C.G.A. § 9-6 -2 0 t o co m pe l Effi ng ha m

Co un ty to h ol d ahe ari ng on he r te rm in at io n a ndass ert ed ag ai ns t Lee a cl ai m

of t orti ou s i nt erfe ren ce wi th he r em pl oym en t co nt ract . The de fen da nt s re m ov edth e act io n t o fe de ral co urt. The di stric t co urt g ran te d the de fen dant s’ m ot io n t o d is m is s Th om as ’s § 1 98 3 due pro ces s cl ai m s, co nc lu di ng th atth ey were b ro ug htou ts id e th e ap pl ic ab le two -y ear s ta tu te of l im it at io ns . The d is tri ctco urt d ecl in edto ex erci se supp le m en ta l juris di ct io n o ve r Tho m as ’s st at e la w cla im s an d re m an de d t he m to th e Effi ng ha m

Co un ty Sup eri orCo urt. Tho m as fil edth is ap pe al
. 1

II . DISCUSSI ON Tho m as arg ue s t ha t Geo rg ia ’s fou r-y ear s ta tu te of l im it at io ns forin juri es to pe rs on al ty gov ern s h er § 19 83 cla im . Howev er, i t i s wel l-s et tl edth at§ 1 98 3 act io ns fil edinGeor gi a are go ve rn edby G eo rg ia ’s two -y ear s ta tu te of l im it at io ns fo r pe rs on al in

jury clai m s. See W il li am s v . Cit y of At la nt a, 79 4 F .2d62 4, 6 26 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 6) . Furt he rm or e, whe n t he § 1 98 3 c la im rel at es to anun la wfu l
We reviewde novo a district c ourt’s dismissal of a cla im as barr ed by the statute of 1 limit ations. J ackson v. A strue, 506 F .3d 1349, 1352 (11th Cir. 2007). Thomas does not challeng e the district cour t’s ref usal to exercise supplementa l jurisdiction and remand of the state law cla ims to the Eff

ingha m County Superior Court. Although Thomas’s brie f states in passing that she appe als the district court’ s order assessingcosts of $350, she of fer s no substantive argument as to why

this ruling wa s err oneous and thus has a bandoned this cla im. See Doe v. Moore, 410 F .3d 1337, 1349 n.10 (11th Cir. 2005). 4te rm in at io n, the li m it at io ns pe rio d b eg in s t o ru n wh enth e te rm in at io n d eci si on is

m ad e an d c omm

un ic at edto th e em

pl oyee. Cha rd on v. Fe rn an de z, 45 4 U.S. 6 , 8, 10 2 S . Ct. 2 8, 2 9 (1 98 1)
. Lee t ol d Th om as sh e was termin at edon June 21 , 20 05 . Thu s, Th om as ha d
un ti l J un e 2 1, 2 00 7 t o fi le he r § 1 98 3 due pro ces s cl ai m . Tho m as di d n otfil e th is act io n unt il Nov em

be r 30 , 20 07 , fiv e m on th s t oo lat e. Tho m as arg ue s t ha t h er cl ai m di d n otaccrue un ti l Jun e 5 , 20 07 , when th e Supe rio r Co urt ru le d t ha t s he was aco un ty em pl oyee en ti tl edto civ il servi ce pr ot ect io n a ndsh e b ecame “ aware of h er p ro pe rty rig htst atus .” Sh e al so arg ue s th atth e li m it at io ns pe rio d was “ to ll ed ” whi le sh e p ur su edhe r un em pl oym en t
co m pe ns at io n c la im
. Tho m as ’s accru al arg um en t i s fo recl os edby Chard on . See Ch ard on , 45 4 U.S. at 8 ; 1 02 S. Ct. at29 (expl ai ni ng th atth e p ro pe r fo cu s i s o n t he all eg ed
un la wfu l em

pl oym en t ac t, “ no t the po in t atwhi chth e co ns eque nc es of t he act be co m e p ai nf

ul ”). The all eg eddu e p ro ces s v io la ti on oc cu rredon Ju ne 21 , 20 05 whe n Th om as was fi redwitho uta he ari ng . Tho m as kn ew sh e was fir edwitho uta he ari ng be cau se Lee to ldhe r so at t he ti m e an d a ls o s en t h er a l et te r co nf irming th is fact . Thu s, Th om as ’s cla im accrue d o n J un e 2 1, 2 00 5. Tho m as ’s to ll in g arg um en t al so fai ls . For § 19 83 cla im s, we b orro w no t 5on ly the st at e’s st atut e o f li mit at io ns , bu t al so it s b od y of t ol li ng rul es un le ss itis in co ns is te ntwith t he fed eral po li cy un de rlyin g t he cla im . See Bd . of R eg en ts of Uni v. o f St at e o f N.Y. v. Tom an io , 44 6 U.S. 4 78 , 48 4- 86 , 10 0 S . Ct. 1 79 0, 1 79 5- 96 (19 80 ); s ee al so Hawth orne v. Well s, 7 61 F.2d15 14 , 15 15 (11 th Cir . 19 85 ). As a g en eral pro po si ti on of Ge or gi a la w, othe r pe nd in g l aws ui ts , eve n i f th ey m ay affe ctth e p art ie s ri gh ts , do no t t ol l a s ta tu te of l im it at io ns . See Mc Cab e v . Garret t, 21 1 Ga. Ap p. 8 48 , 84 8, 4 40 S.E.2d73 4, 7 35 (19 94 ) (“ [T]he ru le th atth e st atut e o f li mit at io ns be gi ns to run fro m th e ti m e whe n aco m

pl et e cau se of a ct io n a ccru es is
no t af fect edby the factth atth e res ul t o f a p en di ng laws ui t m ay lar ge ly affecta pa rty’ s ri gh ts .” ) (quo ti ng W orril l v . Pit ne y -Bo wes , Inc ., 12 8 Ga. Ap p. 7 41 , 74 4, 19 7 S .E.2d84 8, 8 50 -5 1 (1 97 3) ). Tho m as als o d oe s n otpo in t t o a ny Georg ia to ll in g ru le th atpurs ui t o f anun em pl oym en t i ns ur an ce cl ai m so m eh ow t ol ls th e st atut e o f li m it at io ns on he r du e p ro ces s cl ai m . Giv enth atTho m as di d n otfil e h er § 19 83 du e p ro ces s cl ai m withi n t he two y ear l im it at io ns pe rio d a nddi d n otsh ow ci rcu m st an ces warran ti ng th e to ll in g o f th e li m it at io ns pe rio d, the di st ric t co urt p ro pe rly dis mis se d Th om as ’s § 1 98 3 due pr oc es s cl ai m . AFFIRMED.

6