[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 21-12002

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

In re:

URSULA LANGLEY,

Debtor.

URSULA LANGLEY, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JON WAAGE, 

Defendant-Appellee.

USCA11 Case: 21-12002 Date Filed: 02/07/2022 Page: 1 of 5
2 Opinion of the Court 21-12002

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 2:20-cv-00956-SPC

____________________

Before WILSON, JORDAN, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Ursula Langley, a pro se debtor, appeals following the district court’s refusal to reconsider its order affirming the bankruptcy 

court’s denial of confirmation and dismissal of her bankruptcy petition. For the reasons which follow, we affirm.

In the district court, Ms. Langley argued that two putative 

creditors—the Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and APG 

Holdings Revokable Trust—could neither hold a valid Note on her 

residential property nor enforce one against her; that Deutsche 

Bank’s proof of claim represented a class action to losses by investor; and that the bankruptcy court should have deferred to a pending adversary proceeding she had filed before rendering a decision 

in the case. The district court affirmed the decision of the bankruptcy court, ruling that the bankruptcy court correctly recognized 

that Ms. Langley had tried to use the bankruptcy proceedings to 

litigate the merits of her mortgage notes. Additionally, the district 

court concluded that she had not challenged the rulings of the 

bankruptcy court and instead used the appeal to contest the 

USCA11 Case: 21-12002 Date Filed: 02/07/2022 Page: 2 of 5
21-12002 Opinion of the Court 3

bankruptcy court’s separate decision to abate the adversary proceeding. Finally, the district court noted that the bankruptcy court 

had found that her Chapter 13 reorganization plan had not met the 

requirements for confirmation. Ultimately, the district court held 

that even if Ms. Langley had argued the merits of the case, the 

bankruptcy court had properly abstained from determining a state 

law issue and she had not showed an abuse of discretion.

On appeal before us, Ms. Langley argues that due process 

required the bankruptcy court to consider her adversary complaint 

to its completion. Additionally, she asserts that Deutsche Bank and 

APG had no standing to file proofs of claims, that they did not have 

valid notes to enforce any claims, and that they were not valid creditors. Significantly, however, she does not challenge any of the bases provided by the district court for affirming the bankruptcy 

court’s decision.1

In an appeal from a bankruptcy proceeding, we “independently examine[s] the bankruptcy court’s factual and legal determinations, applying the same standards of review as the district 

court.” Coady v. D.A.N. Joint Venture III, LLP (In re Coady), 

1 Although Ms. Langley’s notice of appeal only designated the denial of a motion for reconsideration for review, we liberally construe it to also include the 

underling judgment, as her intent to appeal the underlying order is clear. See 

Kicklighter v. Nails by Jannee, Inc., 616 F.2d 734, 738–39 n.1 (5th Cir. 1980). 

Because Ms. Langley does not present arguments relating to the denial of her 

motions for reconsideration by the bankruptcy court and district court, respectively, any issues in those respects are abandoned. See Sapuppo v. Allstate 

Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 681 (11th Cir. 2014).

USCA11 Case: 21-12002 Date Filed: 02/07/2022 Page: 3 of 5
4 Opinion of the Court 21-12002

588 F.3d 1312, 1315 (11th Cir. 2009). That means that we “review 

the bankruptcy court’s factual findings for clear error and its resolution of any legal questions de novo.” Id. 

We liberally construe pro se pleadings. Tannenbaum v. 

United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998). But though we 

read briefs filed by pro se litigants liberally, issues not briefed on 

appeal by a pro se litigant are deemed abandoned. See Timson v. 

Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008). 

A claim or argument is considered abandoned if it is not adequately addressed in the initial brief. See Sapuppo, 739 F.3d at 681.

To properly “brief” a claim, a party must “plainly and prominently 

raise it.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). And if the district court’s 

order rested on two or more independent, alternative grounds, the 

appellant must challenge all of the grounds to succeed on appeal. 

See id at 680. When an appellant fails to challenge properly on appeal one of the grounds on which the district court based its judgment, she is deemed to have abandoned any challenge of that 

ground, and it follows that the judgment is due to be affirmed. See 

Id. 

Chapter 13 “affords individuals receiving regular income an 

opportunity to obtain some relief from their debts while retaining 

their property.” Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank, 575 U.S. 496, 498 

(2015). “To proceed under Chapter 13, a debtor must propose a 

[reorganization] plan to use further income to repay a portion (or 

in the rare case all) of [her] debts over the next three to five years.” 

Id. As relevant here, 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(2) prohibits any 

USCA11 Case: 21-12002 Date Filed: 02/07/2022 Page: 4 of 5
21-12002 Opinion of the Court 5

modification of a homestead mortgagee’s rights in the Chapter 13 

plan. See Universal Am. Mort. Co. v. Bateman (In re Bateman), 

331 F.3d 821, 826 (11th Cir. 2003).

In her brief, Ms. Langley does not challenge the multiple 

grounds (a) that the bankruptcy court relied on to deny confirmation and dismiss her complaint and (b) which the district court affirmed. Although we construe her brief liberally, she does not address any of those grounds and that means that she has abandoned 

any challenges to those grounds. See Timson, 518 F.3d at 874. The 

district court’s judgment must therefore be affirmed. See Sapuppo, 

739 F.3d at 680.2 

AFFIRMED. 

2 Even assuming that Ms. Langley had implicitly challenged the 

grounds set out by the bankruptcy court and district court, affirmance would 

still be appropriate. Simply stated, she did not present a Chapter 13 plan which 

could be confirmed. Her reorganization plan called for payments over 84 

months, which is beyond the 3-to-5-year plan as required by the statute. 11 

U.S.C. § 1322(d). Additionally, much of her arguments before the bankruptcy 

and the district court consisted of her impermissible challenges to the status of

Deutsche Bank and APG as lienholders in the Chapter 13 proceedings. See 

Bateman, 331 F.3d 821, 826 (11th Cir. 2003); 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(2). 

USCA11 Case: 21-12002 Date Filed: 02/07/2022 Page: 5 of 5