[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-12007

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

MARK GRISSOM, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JOHN MERKLE, 

N WHITAKER, 

TONY DAVIS, 

LESLIE WIGGINS, 

SCOTT ISSACS, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

____________________

USCA11 Case: 22-12007 Document: 22-1 Date Filed: 01/31/2023 Page: 1 of 3
2 Opinion of the Court 22-12007

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Alabama

D.C. Docket No. 2:21-cv-01633-ACA

____________________

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, NEWSOM, and ANDERSON, 

Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Mark Grissom appeals the dismissal of his pro se amended 

complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Grissom complained that the defendants violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq., and various constitutional rights 

stemming from his termination from a Veterans Affairs medical 

center. The district court dismissed the complaint because the Civil 

Service Reform Act of 1978, 5 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq., barred his challenge to an adverse employment action couched as racketeering 

and constitutional violations. The defendants move for summary 

affirmance and for a stay of the briefing schedule. Because “the position of [the defendants] . . . is clearly right as a matter of law so 

that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the 

case,” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th 

Cir. 1969), we grant the motion for summary affirmance and deny

as moot the motion to stay the briefing schedule.

“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 

USCA11 Case: 22-12007 Document: 22-1 Date Filed: 01/31/2023 Page: 2 of 3
22-12007 Opinion of the Court 3

it follows that the judgment is due to be affirmed.” Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 680 (11th Cir. 2014). For an 

argument to be sufficiently briefed on appeal, the argument must 

include the appellant’s “contentions and the reasons for them, with 

citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which the 

appellant relies.” Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A).

Summary affirmance is appropriate. Grissom has abandoned any objection to the dismissal of his amended complaint for 

lack of jurisdiction by failing to raise any meaningful argument 

against it. Even liberally construed, Grissom’s assertions that the 

district court “impeded due process and equal access” and “effectively denied [his] constitutional rights” by “recreating” his complaint into something that it could dismiss are vague and conclusory. The argument section of Grissom’s opening brief, which 

spans only a few pages and provides a list of 13 conclusory statements, contains no citations to authority or portions of the record

nor any explanation of why the district court erred. As a result, 

there is no substantial question as to the outcome of the case, and 

the defendants’ position that we must affirm is correct as a matter 

of law. See Groendyke, 406 F.2d at 1162.

We GRANT the motion for summary affirmance, AFFIRM

the dismissal of Grissom’s amended complaint, and DENY AS 

MOOT the motion to stay the briefing schedule.

USCA11 Case: 22-12007 Document: 22-1 Date Filed: 01/31/2023 Page: 3 of 3