[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 18-10754

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:17-cv-03349-AT

KELVIN STEPHENS, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

EQUIFAX, 

EXPERIAN, 

TRANSUNION, 

 Defendants-Appellees.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

________________________

(June 25, 2018)

Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, BRANCH, and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 18-10754 Date Filed: 06/25/2018 Page: 1 of 3 
2

Kelvin Stephens, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing his civil action for failure to obey a court order.

Stephens filed a complaint alleging that Equifax, Experian, and Transunion 

violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by incorrectly reporting his credit 

information and ignoring his requests to correct the inaccuracies. A magistrate 

judge recognized that Stephens was a pro se litigant but ruled that his complaint 

violated Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) and 10(b) because he failed to 

present a short, plain statement of relief and his claims were not listed in separate 

counts. The magistrate judge also stated that Stephens did not identify the alleged 

inaccuracies and other information necessary to allege plausible claims for relief. 

The magistrate judge allowed Stephens to file an amended complaint and gave him

specific instructions to follow, such as providing a brief factual background and 

alleging each cause of action under a separate count.

Stephens timely filed an amended complaint, which repeated his general 

allegations and listed each defendant in a separate paragraph. The magistrate judge 

ruled that, liberally construed, his amended complaint still failed to identify the 

alleged inaccuracies and other information necessary to state a plausible claim for 

relief. The magistrate judge instructed him to file a second amended complaint 

that alleged in separate paragraphs specific facts against the defendants. The 

Case: 18-10754 Date Filed: 06/25/2018 Page: 2 of 3 
3

magistrate judge advised Stephens that his failure to comply with the order would 

result in a recommendation that his action be dismissed.

Stephens did not file a second amended complaint. The district court 

dismissed the action, finding that Stephens had engaged in a clear pattern of willful 

conduct by choosing to ignore the magistrate judge’s directions and that lesser 

sanctions would not suffice. This is Stephens’ appeal.

Stephens’ brief, liberally construed, does not address any of the district 

court’s reasons for dismissing his appeal, which means that he has abandoned 

those issues. See Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008) 

(“[I]ssues not briefed on appeal by a pro se litigant are deemed abandoned.”). As a 

result, the district court’s judgment must be affirmed. See Sapuppo v. Allstate 

Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 680 (11th Cir. 2014) (“When an appellant fails to 

challenge properly on appeal one of the grounds on which the district court based 

its judgment, he is deemed to have abandoned any challenge of that ground, and it 

follows that the judgment is due to be affirmed.”).1

AFFIRMED.

 1 Even if Stephens had briefed those issues, he could not show that the district court 

abused its discretion in dismissing this action. The record shows that he repeatedly failed to 

comply with the magistrate judge’s instructions, and the magistrate judge warned him that failure 

to comply with those instructions would result in a recommendation of dismissal. See Moon v. 

Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989) (“While dismissal is an extraordinary remedy, 

dismissal upon disregard of an order, especially where the litigant has been forewarned, 

generally is not an abuse of discretion.”).

Case: 18-10754 Date Filed: 06/25/2018 Page: 3 of 3