FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT MARCH 10, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [ DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 07- 1450 6 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D
. C. D oc ke t N o. 06- 0003 3- CV -5 CHARLES SCOTT , Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant , ve rs us DE PU TYSH ER IFF JAME S ME RCIE R , D e p u t y S h e r i f

f o f B r a n t l e y, De fendant-Appellee
.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court for the Southern Districtof Ge orgia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (M ar ch 10, 200 8) Be fo re BI RC H , BL A CK

a nd PR Y O R , Ci rc uit

Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

Ch ar le s S co tt ap pe al s th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of sum m ar y j udgm en t i n th is 42 U. S. C. § 198 3 action against Jam es Merc ier, the De putySherif f of Br antley County , G eorgia. In his com plaint, Scott alleged Mer cier, while a cting un der
co lor of state law , e nte re d hi s pr ope rty w ith out pe rm iss iona nd, w he n S co tt declined Mercier ’ s com

m ands, attacked and beat him
. Scott explicitly sued Me rc ie r onl y

in his of fi ci al c ap ac ity , a sse rt ing vari ous state lawtor ts and a § 19 83 action alleging a vio lation of Scott’ s civil rights
. Mercie r fir st m oved for summ ary j udgm en t onF eb ru ar

y 12, 200 7. D ur ing astatus c onf er en ce on June 29, 200 7, Mercie r asked to file an am endm ent to his s umm ary j udgm ent m otion
. The district court instructed Mercier

to file his am endm ent within three w eeks, and allowed Sc ott tw o w ee ks t o r es pond
. Me rc ie r fi le d hi s am en de d m oti on o n Ju ly 20, 200 7, arg ui ng th atso ve rei gn imm un it y ba rred th e su it . Sco tt rep li edon Ju ly 30, 2 00 7. O n S ep te m

be r 14, 200 7, the dis tr ic t c ourt gr an te d su m m ar y j udgm en t i n f

av or of Me rc ie r on the § 19 83 c la im s, f ind ing Me rc ie r w as e nti tle d to E le ve nth Am endm ent sovereign imm unityas a state a ctor under Manders v. L ee , 338 F
. 3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2003) and, a lternatively , that S cott had failed to challenge an official policy

or practice of the Brantley County Sherif f’ s Of fice. T he district
c o u rtd e c l i n e dt o e x e r c i s e s up p l e me n t a l j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r S c o t t ’s s t a t e l a wc l a i ms and dism issed them

without prej udice.We decline to addr ess Scott’s argument that the district court e rre d in considering 1 Merc ier’s a

mended summary

judgme nt motion asserting sove reign immunit y . Scott argues the court pe rmitted Merc ier to ame nd his summary judgme nt motion well outs ide the date set by the o r i g i n a l S c h e d

u l i n gO r d e r

w i th o u td e m o n s tr at i n gth e g o o d c a u s e r e qu i r e d

b y F ED . R. C IV . P RO . 16 (b )( 4) . We wi ll n ot a dd re ss t his argume nt b e c a

us e Sc ott wa s g ive n ampl e op po rt

un ity to r a ise itbel ow b ot h atth e st atu s co nfer ence a ndwhe n h e res po nd ed t o M erci er’s ame nd ed m ot io n. By failingto do so, Scott waived the ar gument. See A cce ss Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co. , 385 F.3d 13 24 , 1 33 1 ( 11 th C ir . 2 00 4) (“ [A]n i ssu e no t r a ise d in the dis tr ic t c ourt

and ra ise d f or the fi rs t time in an appea l will not be considered by this court.” (quotations omi tted)). 3 W e ha ve tho ro ughl y

r ev ie w ed the r ec or d and the br ie fs in thi s c as e an d f ind
no m er it to any

of S co tt’ s is sue s onappe al
. W e af fi rm f or the r ea sons se t f

orth i n 1 the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s w el l- re as one d or de r of S ep te m be r 14, 200 7. AF FIRMED
.