[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 20

- 1 2321 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 8:19

- cv - 00562

- JSM

- AAS

CRAIG LE A KS , a.k.a. C raig L eeks , P laintiff

- Appell ant ,

versus GEOPOINT SURVEYING, INC. , Defendant

- Appell ee
.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florid a

________________________ (March 2, 2021) Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge , JILL PRYOR and LAGOA , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

USCA11 Case: 20-12321 Date Filed: 03/02/2021 Page: 1 of 42 Craig Le e ks appeals the summary judgment in favor of his former employer,
Geo P oint Surveying, Inc. , and against his complaint of retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e

- 2. Le e ks complained that Geo P oint fired him in retaliat ion for report ing that his coworkers harassed him based on his race . Le e ks challenges a magistrate judge’s orders that denied his motion for sanctions and that granted in part a motion to compel discovery , but we lack jurisdiction to review those decisions . Le e ks also argues , for the first time, that the district court should have allowed him to amend his complaint

. B ut Le e ks does not dispute the ruling that his complaint of retaliation failed as a matter of law. We dismiss in part and affirm in part

. We lack jurisdiction to review the magistrate judge’s orders

. “ T he law is settled that appellate courts are without jurisdiction to hear appeals directly from federal magistrates

. ” United States v. Schultz , 565 F.3d 1353, 1359 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoting United States v. Renfro , 620 F.2d 497, 500 (5th Cir. 1980))

. Le e ks never sought to have the district court review the magistrate judge ’s decision t o grant in part the third motion of G eo P oint to compel discovery

. See Renfro , 620 F.2d at 500 (dismissing challenge to magistrate judge’s denial of a discovery motion that defendant did not appeal to the district court); Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(a) (providing a defendant must serve and file objections to a magistrate judge ’ s ruling

on a non - dispositive matter within 14 days, or he waives any right to review)

. And

USCA11 Case: 20-12321 Date Filed: 03/02/2021 Page: 2 of 43 b ecause the district court entered summary judgment in favor of Geo P oint before the magistrate judge denied Le e ks’s motion for sanctions, t h e later ruling by the magistrate judge did not merge into the final judgment and i s not reviewable on appeal of that judgment. See Barfield v. Brierton , 883 F.2d 923, 930 (11th Cir. 1989) (“[S]ince only a final judgment or order is appealable, the a ppeal from a final judgment draws in question all prior non

- final orders and rulings which produced the judgment.” ). Because w e cannot review the magistrate judge’s orders , we dismiss th at part of Le e ks’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction

. Le e ks argues that the district court erred by failing sua sponte to grant him leave to amend his complaint , but the “ district court [was] not required to grant [him] l eave to amend his complaint sua sponte when [ h is attorney ]

. . . never filed a motion to amend nor requested leave to amend before the district court.” See Wagner v. Daewoo Heavy Industries America Corp. , 314 F.3d 541, 542 (11th Cir. 2002) (en banc). Feder al Rule of Civil Procedure 15 provides that, after a defendant files its responsive pleading, a plaintiff “ may amend [his] pleading only with the opposing party ’ s written consent or the court ’ s leave.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). We can not fault the district court for failing to allow Le e ks to amend his complaint when he never requested to do so

. Le e ks has abandoned a ny argument he could have made against the judgment that his complaint of retaliation failed as a matter of law. A party

USCA11 Case: 20-12321 Date Filed: 03/02/2021 Page: 3 of 44 abandons an issue by failing to brief it on appeal or by using it as “ mere background to [hi s ] main arguments . . . .” Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co. , 739 F.3d 678, 682 (11th Cir. 2014). Le e ks argues that the district court should have used the definition of “reprisal” in Section 8(a) of t he National Labor Relation Act of 1935 to interpret the meaning of “retaliation” in Title VII. But h e does not contest the ruling that his complaint of retaliation failed because he “did not experience an adverse employment action” when he quit by walking out of an employment meeting and because “the record [was] undisputed that Geo P oint had legitimate, non

- discriminatory reasons ” f or fir ing him for his “consistently poor” work, negative attitude, and frequent insubordinat ion. As a result , “it follows that the [summary] judgment [in favor of Geo P oint] is due to be affirmed

. ” Sapuppo , 739 F.3d at 680. DISMISSED IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART. USCA11 Case: 20-12321 Date Filed: 03/02/2021 Page: 4 of 4