FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT M ay 2, 2008 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 13843 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 7 - 0 0 1 3 8 - CV - 3 - M H T- TFM A L O N Z O A U S T IN , E xecut or for th e e s ta te o f

R u th H . L e w is , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s M O D E RN W O O D M A N O F A M E R I C A , A L F O N Z A M E N E F E E , P ro b at e Ju d g e, i n h i s in d iv id u a l a n d o f

f ic ia l c ap a c itie s , e t a l., D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e M i d d l e D i s tr i c to f A l ab a ma

_________________________ ( M ay 2, 2008) B efo re T JO F L A T , A N D E R S O N an d B L A C K , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:The several motions by several appe llees to adopt other a ppellee briefs are grante d. 1 2 A lo n zo A u stin , an in d iv id u al p ro ce ed in g p ro se o n b eh alf o f h is co u sin ’s e s t a t e , appe a l s the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s di s m i s s a l of hi s 42 U . S . C . § 1983 c om pl a i nt agai nstvari ou s def

endant s. A s e xecut or of hi s c ou si n’ s e st at e, A ust i n ass ert s that

1 vari ou s i nd i vi du al s a nd ent i t i es –am on g them , an A l abam a probat e c ou rtj ud ge, s e v e r a l a tto rn e y s , th e s ta te m e d ic a l lic e n s in g b o a r d , a n d s e v e r a l b a n k s – v io la te d h is c ous i n’ s F our t e e nth A m e ndm e ntr i ght s i n c onne c t i on w i th he rgua r di a ns hi p a nd h o u s in g a n d , u ltim a te ly , th e d is tr ib u tio n o f h e rp r o p e r ty u p o n h e rd e a th in 1 9 9 4 . O n appe a l , A us t i n a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d by notc ons trui ng the defe nd ant s’ m ot i on s t o d i sm i ss pu rs uantt o F eder al R ul e of C i vi l P roce du re 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) a s m o tio n s f

o rs u m m a ry ju d g m e n t p u r s u a n t to R u le 5 6 ( e ) . H e a s s e r ts th is e rr orc a us e d hi m ha r m be c a us e ha d the di s tr i c tc our tde c i de d the c a s e unde rthe s um m a ry j udgm e nts t a nda r d, tw o of the de f e nda nt s , J udge s M e ne f

e e a nd B ry a n, w o u l d h av e b een req u i red t o “ p ro v e ab so l u t e o r q u al i fi ed i m m u n i ty. ” A u st i n al so fi nd s e rr or i n the di stri ctcourt ’ s f ai l ure t o con si der hi s m ot i on for s um m ary j udgm e nt ; he a s s e r t s tha tthe c our ts houl d ha ve t a ke n hi s a l l e ga t i ons a s true a nd th a t th e r e w a s a d is p u te d g e n u in e is s u e o f m a te r ia l f

a c t a t th e R u le 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) s ta g e . A ddi t i ona l l y , on appe a l , A us t i n appe a r s t o a r gue the m e r i t s of the unde r l y i ng prob at e procee di ng s outof w hi ch thi s § 19 83 ac t i on ar ose.3

W e rev i ew d e n o v o an o rd er g ran t i n g m o t i o n s t o d i sm i ss. W ag n er v . F i rst H ori zon P harm ac eut i ca l C orp. , 46 4 F . 3d 12 73 , 12 76 -77 (11 th C i r. 20 06 ). In r e vi e w i ng a di s tr i c tc our t ’ s gr a ntof a m ot i on t o di s m i s s , the a l l e ga t i ons i n the c om pl a i nt“ m us tbe t a ke n a s true a nd r e a d i n the l i ghtm os tf a vor abl e t o the p la in tif f s .” L in d e rv . P o r to c a rr e r o , 9 6 3 F .2 d 3 3 2 , 3 3 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ) .

“ A c our ti s ge ne r a l l y l i m i t e d t o r e vi e w i ng w ha ti s w i thi n the f ourc orne r s of the c om pl a i nton a m ot i on t o di s m i s s . ” B i c kl e y v. C a r e m a rk R X , I nc . , 461 F . 3d 13 25 , 13 29 n. 7 (11 th C i r. 20 06 ). U nd erF eder al R ul e of C i vi l P roce du re 12 (d),

“ [i ] f, on a m ot i on for j ud gm enton the pl ea di ng s, m att er s out si de the pl ea di ng s a re pr e s e nt e d t o a nd note xc l ude d by the c our t , the m ot i on m us tbe tr e a t e d a s one f or sum m ary j ud gm entun der R ul e 56. ” F ed. R . C i v. P . 12 (d) ( 20 08 ). “ W henever a ju d g e c o n s id e r s m a tte r s o u ts id e th e p le a d in g s in a 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) m o tio n , th a t m o tio n is the r e by c onve r t e d i nt o a R ul e 56 S um m a ry J udgm e ntm ot i on. ” T rus tm a r k I ns . C o. v. E S L U , Inc. , 29 9 F . 3d 12 65 , 12 67 (11t h C i r. 20 02 ). A ft er carefu l rev i ew , w e d i scern n o rev ersi b l e erro r. A l th o u g h th e p art i es’ m ot i ons ha d a f

f i da vi t s , the r e c or d de m ons tr a t e s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tdi d not c ons i de rm a tt e r s out s i de the pl e a di ngs . T he m a gi s tr a t e ’ s r e por ta nd r e c om m e nda t i on, w hi c h w a s a dopt e d by the di s tr i c tc our t , onl y c ons i de r e d the

“ fa ce of A ust i n’ s c om pl ai nt ” w hen i ss ui ng i t s r ec om m endat i on . T he di stri ctcourtWe observe that the district court dismissed Appellant’s complaint on grounds of, inter 2 alia, absolute judicial immuni ty , state sovereign immunity , and for want of a state ac tor. Appellant has not c halleng ed the substanc e of this ruling . I ssues not raised on a ppeal a re deeme d waived. SeeGre enbria r, Ltd. v. City

of Alaba ster, 881 F .2d 1570, 1573 n.6 (11th Cir. 1989). Even w erewe a

ble to construe A

ppellant’s brie f to present such a c halleng e, wefind no reversible er

ror. Two of the de fenda

nts, Regions B ank and Wac hovia B ank, move this Court for 3 sanctions pursuant to F ederal Rule of Appe llate Proce dure 38 a nd 28 U.S.C. § 1912. The motion is de nie d. Th e reis n o in dic atio n in there c ord th at App e lla

nt’ s in art ful c omp laint

(a nd a pp e al) was madefor pur

poses of ha

rassment or de lay . Nor is thereany indication that Appellant has be e n litig iou s, or

ha s f ile d multiplefrivo lou s ac tio ns . 4 there fore di d n oterr w hen i tfa i l ed t o tre atthe defendant s’ m ot i on s t o d i sm i ss as m ot i ons f

ors um m a ry j udgm e nt . S e e B i c kl e y , 461 F . 3d a t1329 n. 7; T rus tm a r k I ns . C o. , 299 F . 3d a t1267. B e c a us e thi s i s the onl y i s s ue r a i s e d on appeal , and A ust i n h as abando ned al l other i ss ues, the di stri ctcourt ’ s order

2 d is m is s in g A u s tin ’s c la im s a g a in s t th e d e f e n d a n ts is AF F I R ME D. 3