[ DO NOT PUBLISH] 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 32 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 W ILLIAM P RYOR , Chief Judge, N EWSOM , and A NDERSON , 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. § 196 1 et seq. , and various constitutional rights stemming from his termination from a Veterans Affairs m edical

c enter. The district court dismissed the complaint because the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 , 5 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq. , barr ed his c hallenge to an adverse employment action couched as racketeering and constitutional violations

. The defendant s move for s ummary 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 d eny 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 322

- 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 “cont entions and th e 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 assertion s that thedistrict 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 brie f
, which
span s only a few pages and provide s a list of 13 conclusory statements, contain s no citation s to authority or portions of the record

n or any explanation of why the district court erred

. A s a result
, t here is no substantial question as to the outco me of the case, and the defendant s’ 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