[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 21-11830

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

ADAM HULBERT, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

GEORGE C. SIMPSON, 

 Defendants-Appellees.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Alabama

D.C. Docket No. 2:20-cv-01009-MHH

____________________

USCA11 Case: 21-11830 Date Filed: 03/09/2022 Page: 1 of 4
2 Opinion of the Court 21-11830

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, LUCK and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Adam Hulbert appeals pro se the dismissal of his amended 

complaint against Judge George Simpson of the Circuit Court of 

Shelby County, Alabama. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Hulbert has abandoned any challenge he could have made to the dismissal of his 

complaint against the United States. See Timson v. Sampson, 518 

F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008). The district court ruled that Judge 

Simpson had absolute judicial immunity from suit for his judicial 

acts while presiding over Hulbert’s divorce and child-custody proceedings. We affirm.

Hulbert complained of negligence and of the violation of his 

rights to free speech and to petition for a redress of grievances under the First Amendment, his right to due process under the Fifth 

and Fourteenth Amendments, and his right to avoid “needless pain 

and extreme suffering” under the Eighth Amendment. Hulbert alleged that the judge dismissed his petition to modify, “ignored . . . 

Hulbert’s twin children” and “evidence of dangerous hacking . . . 

of [his] private email box,” denied him a “fair divorce trial,” violated the Rules of Civil Procedure, and “continue[d] to take [his] 

children away.” Hulbert sought damages of $15 million.

We review de novo the dismissal of Hulbert’s amended 

complaint. Smith v. Shook, 237 F.3d 1322, 1325 (11th Cir. 2001).

USCA11 Case: 21-11830 Date Filed: 03/09/2022 Page: 2 of 4
21-11830 Opinion of the Court 3

We “determine whether the complaint alleges a clearly established 

constitutional violation[ by] accepting the facts alleged in the complaint as true, drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor, and limiting our review to the four corners of the complaint.” 

Keating v. City of Miami, 598 F.3d 753, 762 (11th Cir. 2010).

The district court correctly dismissed Hulbert’s amended 

complaint against Judge Simpson. “Judges are entitled to absolute 

judicial immunity from damages for those acts taken while they are 

acting in their judicial capacity unless they acted in the ‘clear absence of all jurisdiction.’” Bolin v. Story, 225 F.3d 1234, 1239 (11th 

Cir. 2000). And “[a] judge enjoys immunity for judicial acts regardless of whether he made a mistake, acted maliciously, or exceeded 

his authority.” McCullough v. Finley, 907 F.3d 1324, 1331 (11th 

Cir. 2018). Judge Simpson enjoyed absolute immunity from suit 

for his judicial acts in adjudicating Hulbert’s domestic relations 

case.

Hulbert was not entitled to a default judgment against Judge

Simpson. A default judgment is appropriate only “[w]hen a party 

against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed 

to plead or otherwise defend . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). Hulbert 

served process on Judge Simpson on August 3, 2020, and Judge 

Simpson timely moved to dismiss the complaint on August 25, 

2020.

Hulbert makes several arguments that are not properly before us. Hulbert argues that he “allege[d] a deprivation of rights 

under . . . The Religious Freedom Restoration Act” and requests 

USCA11 Case: 21-11830 Date Filed: 03/09/2022 Page: 3 of 4
4 Opinion of the Court 21-11830

injunctive relief, but because neither subject was mentioned in his 

amended complaint, we will not consider them for the first time 

on appeal. See Miller v. King, 449 F.3d 1149, 1150 (11th Cir. 2006).

We also cannot consider Hulbert’s argument about wrongdoing by 

the “Shelby County Courthouse Government Agency” because he 

did not name that entity as a defendant in his amended complaint. 

Nor can we consider Hulbert’s new factual allegations about the 

denial of procedural and substantive due process, breach of contract, or violation of fiduciary duties. See Access Now, Inc. v. Sw. 

Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1330–32 (11th Cir. 2004). Hulbert also

challenges the outcome of his divorce and child-custody proceedings, but the district court would have lacked jurisdiction to review

the judgment of a state court. See District of Columbia Court of 

Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983); Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 

263 U.S. 413 (1923).

We AFFIRM the dismissal of Hulbert’s amended complaint.

We also DENY Hulbert’s motion for oral argument because it is 

unnecessary to resolve his appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

USCA11 Case: 21-11830 Date Filed: 03/09/2022 Page: 4 of 4