[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 19-12582

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:18-cv-00542-WMR

PETR SEDLACEK, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, 

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION (FANNIE MAE), 

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.(MERS), 

CONSUMER HOME MORTGAGE INC., 

 Defendants-Appellees.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

________________________

(January 22, 2021)

Before BRANCH, LAGOA, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

USCA11 Case: 19-12582 Date Filed: 01/22/2021 Page: 1 of 6
2

Petr Sedlacek, pro se, appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his 

complaint against Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (“Ocwen”), the Federal National 

Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”), Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems 

(“MERS”), and Consumer Home Mortgage Inc. (“CHM”) for failure to state a claim 

for which relief may be granted and the court’s denial of his motion for a new trial. 

On appeal, Sedlacek argues that the district court deprived him of his due process 

rights and his right to trial by jury and that the court abused its discretion by 

assigning his case to a magistrate judge, adopting the magistrate judge’s findings 

and recommendations, and denying his post-judgment motions.

This appeal involves several legal standards of review. Whether a court has 

subject-matter jurisdiction is a question of law that we review de novo. Holston 

Invs., Inc. B.V.I. v. LanLogistics Corp., 677 F.3d 1068, 1070 (11th Cir. 2012). In a 

civil case, a party’s notice of appeal must designate the judgments or orders being 

appealed. Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(1)(B). We lack jurisdiction over a district court order 

entered after the filing of a litigant’s notice of appeal unless the litigant files an 

additional or amended notice of appeal. E.g., Bogle v. Orange Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. 

Comm’rs, 162 F.3d 653, 660–61 (11th Cir. 1998). Next, although a party who fails 

to object to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation waives these objections 

on appeal, we may review these challenges “on appeal for plain error if necessary in 

the interests of justice.” 11th Cir. R. 3-1. Additionally, we review a district court’s 

USCA11 Case: 19-12582 Date Filed: 01/22/2021 Page: 2 of 6
3

denial of post-judgment motions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 for an 

abuse of discretion. Kerrivan v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 953 F.3d 1196, 1204 

(11th Cir. 2020) (explaining standard for a motion for a new trial); Shuford v. Fid. 

Nat’l Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 508 F.3d 1337, 1341 (11th Cir. 2007) (explaining 

standard for a motion to alter or amend a judgment). And, in their briefs on appeal, 

appellants are required to provide a concise statement of the applicable standards of 

review for each issue and legal argument with citations to legal authorities and the 

parts of the record upon which appellant relies. Fed. R. App. Pro. 28(a). Thus, 

issues not briefed on appeal by a pro se litigant are deemed abandoned. Timson v. 

Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008); see also N.L.R.B. v. McClain of Ga., 

Inc., 138 F.3d 1418, 1422 (11th Cir. 1998) (“Issues raised in a perfunctory manner, 

without supporting arguments and citation to authorities, are generally deemed to be 

waived.”).

The Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause prohibits the government from 

depriving any person of property without due process of law. Dusenbery v. United 

States, 534 U.S. 161, 167 (2002). The Supreme Court has determined that 

individuals whose property interests are at stake under this clause are entitled to 

“notice and an opportunity to be heard.” Id. (quoting United States v. James Daniel 

Good Real Prop., 510 U.S. 43, 48 (1993)); see also Parks v. Bank of N.Y., 614 S.E.2d 

63, 64–65 (Ga. 2005) (noting that procedural due process under the Georgia 

USCA11 Case: 19-12582 Date Filed: 01/22/2021 Page: 3 of 6
4

Constitution requires notice “‘reasonably calculated’ under the circumstances to 

apprise the interested parties of the proceeding at issue and afford them an 

opportunity to present their objections” (quoting Mennonite Bd. of Missions v. 

Adams, 462 U.S. 791, 785 (1983))). Additionally, a plaintiff’s right to a trial by jury 

is not violated when a court dismisses a case based on a matter of law at the pretrial 

stage. See Garvie v. City of Fort Walton Beach, 366 F.3d 1186, 1190 (11th Cir. 

2004) (noting that “[i]t is beyond question that a district court may grant summary 

judgment where the material facts . . . cannot reasonably be disputed,” with “the only 

remaining truly debatable matters [being] legal questions that a court is competent 

to address); Galloway v. United States, 319 U.S. 372, 388–96 (1943) (explaining 

that a motion for directed verdict does not violate the right to trial by jury).

Under the Federal Magistrates Act, the district court may designate a 

magistrate judge to conduct hearings and submit proposed findings and 

recommendations to the district court on a variety of motions, including a motion 

for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

Under this act, the district court does not abuse its discretion in declining to consider 

a plaintiff’s argument that was not presented to the magistrate judge. Williams v. 

McNeil, 557 F.3d 1287, 1291–92 (11th Cir. 2009). Furthermore, a person does not 

have standing under Georgia law to challenge a contract unless the person is a party 

to the contract or an intended third-party beneficiary of the contract. Haynes v. 

USCA11 Case: 19-12582 Date Filed: 01/22/2021 Page: 4 of 6
5

McCalla Raymer, LLC, 793 F.3d 1246, 1251 (11th Cir. 2015) (holding that a person 

who is not a party to or an intended third-party beneficiary of an assignment lacks 

standing to challenge a forged assignment).

After a nonjury trial and upon a motion, the district court may grant a new 

trial to any party “for any reason for which a rehearing has heretofore been granted 

in a suit in equity in federal court.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a)(1)(B). The only grounds 

for granting a Rule 59 motion are new evidence or manifest errors of law or fact. 

Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007) (noting that a motion to alter 

or amend a judgment, a filing analogous to a motion for a new trial, may not be used 

to relitigate old matters, raise new arguments, or present evidence that could have 

been raised prior to the entry of judgment).

As an initial matter, we lack jurisdiction to review the district court’s order 

denying Sedlacek’s motion to correct a transcribed record because (1) the district 

court entered this order after he filed his notice of appeal and (2) Sedlacek did not 

designate this order in an additional or amended notice of appeal. Additionally, by 

failing to provide any substantive arguments in his brief, Sedlacek has abandoned 

his remaining arguments on appeal. But even if he had properly raised these issues, 

his arguments are without merit because nothing in the record suggests that the 

district court deprived him of his due process rights or his right to trial by jury. The 

Federal Magistrates Act allowed the district court to assign the case to a magistrate 

USCA11 Case: 19-12582 Date Filed: 01/22/2021 Page: 5 of 6
6

judge, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to consider new 

arguments or evidence that Sedlacek did not present to the magistrate judge. 

Moreover, Sedlacek lacked standing to challenge the assignment of his mortgage 

deed, could not move for a new trial without first having a trial in the district court, 

and failed to present new evidence or identify manifest errors of fact or law to 

support his motion for a new trial. Accordingly, for the reasons stated, we affirm 

the district court’s dismissal of Sedlacek’s action.

AFFIRMED. 

USCA11 Case: 19-12582 Date Filed: 01/22/2021 Page: 6 of 6