FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T J UNE 10, 2011
J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

No. 1 0- 13 44 0
Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

D.C. Dock et No. 1 :0 6- cv -2 29 16 -J EM

ELROY PHILLIPS,

Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,

ve rs us

BRIAN SM ITH, DEA Agen t, i n h is in di vi du al cap aci ty,

Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (J un e 1 0, 2 01 1)

Befo re MAR CUS, MARTIN an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

PER CURI AM:Elro y Ph il li ps , a fed eral pr i s o n er pr oc eed in g pr o se , ap pe al s fo ll owi ng th e

di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t o f su m m ary jud gm en t t o a go ve rn m en t l aw en fo rcem en t ag en t

in th e p res en t s ui t, fi le d p ur su an t t o B iv en s v . Six Unk no wn Nam ed Agen ts of Fed

.

Bu r. of Narco ti cs , 40 3 U.S. 38 8 (1 97 1)

, al le gi ng an in te nt io na l F i f t h Am en dm en t

de pr iv at io n o f hi s pr op ert y an d al le gi ng a co nv ers io n cl ai m un de r Fl or id a la w th at

was di sm is se d with ou t preju di ce. He as se rts th at Bri an Sm it h, a Dru g Enfo rcem en t

Age nc y (“DE A ”) Sp eci al Age nt
, in te nt io na ll y de pr iv ed hi m of pr op ert y th at was

se iz ed du rin g hi s arre st on dr ug ch arg es an d th e su bs eq ue nt se arch of hi s res id en ce.

O n ap pe al

, he arg ue s: (1 ) th at th e di st ric t co ur t im pr op erl y gr an te d su m

m ary jud gm en t

to Sm it h be cau se hi s in te nt was in di sp ut e; (2 ) th at th e di st ric t co ur t vi ol at ed Fed

. R.

Ci v. P. 72 by fai li ng to co ns id er hi s ob jecti on s to th e m ag is tra te ’s rep o r t an d

reco mm e n d a t i on ; an d (3 ) fo r th e fir st ti m e, th at th e di st ric t co ur t im pr op erl y

di sm is se d hi s st at e la w c o n v e rs io n cl ai m whe n it pr op erl y res te d up on fed eral

di ve rs it y juri sd ic ti on

. Afte r th or ou gh rev ie w, we affi rm in pa rt, an d di sm is s in pa rt.

We rev ie w a di st ric t co ur t’s or de r gr an ti ng su m m ary jud gm en t de no vo , an d

vi ew al l of th e fact s in th e reco rd in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e no n- m ov in g pa rty,

dr awin g in fere nc es in hi s fav or

. Hou st on v. W il li am s, 54 7 F.3 d 13 57

, 13 61 (1 1t h Ci r.

20 0 8 )

. W e can affi rm a gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t on an y ba si s su pp or te d by th e

reco rd

. Luc as v. W .W

. Grai ng er, In c., 2 5 7 F

. 3 d 12 49

, 12 56 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 01 ). W e

2rev ie w ou r juri sd ic ti on su a sp on te an d de no vo

. Uni te d St at es v. Lop ez, 56 2 F.3 d

13 09

, 13 11 (1 1t h C i r

. 2 00 9) (ci ta ti on s om it te d)

. W e rev ie w a di st ric t co ur t’s

de te rm in at io n th at it la ck s su b ject m at te r juri sd ic ti on de no vo

. Si na lt rai n v.

Co ca-C ol a Co ., 57 8 F .3d 12 52 , 12 60 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ).

Fi rs t, we are un pe rs ua de d by Ph il li ps ’s cl ai m th at th e di st ric t co ur t im pr op erl y

gr an te d su m

m ary jud gm en t to Sm it h. Su mm a r y ju dg m en t req ui res th e m ov an t to

sh ow th at “ th ere is no ge nu in e di sp ut e as to an y m at eri a l fact an d th e m ov an t is

en ti tl ed to jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w.” Fed .R.Ci v.P

. 56 (a). If th e m ov an t sa ti sf ie s

t h e b ur de n of pr od uc ti on , sh owi ng th at th ere is no ge nu in e is su e of fact

, th e n “t h e

no nm ov in g pa rty m

us t pr es en t ev id en ce be y on d th e pl ead in gs sh owi ng th at a

reas o n a b l e ju ry co ul d fin d in it s fav or .” Sh iv er v. Ch ert of f, 54 9 F.3 d 13 42

, 13 43

(1 1t h Ci r. 20 08 ) (ci ta ti on an d qu ot at io n om itte d)

. “ In rev ie win g m ot io ns fo r su m m ary

jud gm en t, ne it he r we no r th e di st ric t co ur t are to un de rta ke cred ib il it y de te rm in at io ns

or weig h th e ev id en ce.” Tan a v. Dan ta nn a’s, 61 1 F.3 d 76 7, 77 5 n.7 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 10 )

(al te rat io n, ci ta ti on , an d qu ot at io n om it te d)

. Th e n o nm ov in g pa rty can no t crea te a

ge nu in e is su e of m at eri al fact th ro ug h sp ecu la ti on , co njec tu re, or ev id e n c e th at is

“ m erel y co lo rab le ” or “ no t si gn ifi can tl y pr ob at iv e.” And ers on v. Lib ert y Lob by, In c.,

47 7 U.S. 24 2, 24 9- 50 (1 98 6)

. The no nm ov in g pa rty m us t pr ov id e m or e th an a “ m ere

sc in ti ll a of ev id en ce” to su rv iv e a m ot io n f o r s u m m ary jud gm en t. Men do za v.

3Bo rd en , In c., 19 5 F.3 d 12 38

, 12 44 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 99 ) (en ba nc ) (ci ta ti on an d qu ot at io n

om it te d)

.

The Su pr em e Co ur t ha s he ld th at th e Due Pro ces s C l a u s e of th e Fo ur te en th

Am en dm en t is “ no t im

pl ic at ed by a ne gl ig en t act of an of fic ia l cau si ng un in te nd ed

lo ss of

. . . pr op ert y .” Dan ie ls v. W il li a ms , 4 7 4 U.S. 32 7, 32 8 (1 98 6) (em ph as is

om it te d)

. The Fo ur te en th Am en dm en t’s Due Pro ces s Cl au se an d Fi fth Am en dm en t’s

Due Pro ces s Cl au se pr oh ib it th e sa m e act iv it y , wi t h t h e Fi fth Am en dm en t si m pl y

ap pl y in g to fed eral of

fic ia ls

, rat he r th an st at e of fic ia ls

. S e e D us en be rry v. Uni te d

St at es , 53 4 U.S. 1 61 , 16 7 (2 00 2)

.

In Bi ve ns , th e Su pr em e Co ur t h e l d t h at an im pl ie d cau se of act io n ag ai ns t

fed eral ag en ts ex is te d for vi ol at io n of an i nd iv id ua l’s con st it ut io na l rig ht s, un de r in

th at pa rti cu la r cas e, th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t. 40 3 U.S. at 39 0- 97

. The Su pr em e Co ur t

ha s al so reco gn iz ed th at Biv en s ap pl ie s t o i nv id io us di sc riminat io n u nd er t he eq ua l

pr ot ect io n co m

po ne nt of th e Fi fth Am en dm en t. See Ash cro ft v. Iq ba l,

__ U.S. _

_ ,

12 9 S.Ct

. 19 37

, 19 48 (2 00 9) (h ol di ng th at a cl ai m of in vi di ou s di sc riminat io n un de r

th e eq ua l pr ot ect io n co m po ne nt of th e Fi fth Am en dm en t req u i r e s p r o of th at a

de fen da nt “ act ed wit h d is cri m in at or y pu rp os e”).

W hi le ne it he r w e n or th e Su pr em e Co ur t ha ve co ns id ered th e vi ab il it y of a

Bi ve ns rem ed y fo r de pr iv at io n of pr op ert y cl ai m s, su bs eq ue nt to th e Su pr em e Co ur t’s

4ru li ng in Ali v. Fe de ral Bu reau of P ris on s, 5 52 U.S. 21 4 (2 00 8) , th is is su e ne ed no t

be res ol ve d be c a u s e e v en as su m in g arg ue nd o th at a Bi ve ns act io n can li e in th e

in st an t co nt ex t, Ph il li ps ’s cl ai m st il l f a i l s

. P h il li ps pr es en te d no ev id en ce, be y on d

co nc lu so ry al le ga ti on s, to de m on st rat e th at Sm it h in te nt io na ll y de pr iv ed hi m of hi s

pr op ert y

. W hi le he cl ai m ed th at Sm it h’s in te nt co ul d be in ferr ed fro m hi s al le ge d li es

co nc ern in g va rio us m at te rs , he pr es en te d no ev id en ce to sh ow th at Sm it h in te nd ed to

de pr iv e hi m

of h is pro pe rty. More ov er, n ei th er t he m ag is tra te no r th e di st ric t co ur t

were in a po si t i o n to weig h wit ne ss cred ib il it y du rin g su m m ary jud gm en t, an d

Ph il li ps pr es en te d no ev id en ce of Sm it h’s in te nt be y on d co nc lu so ry al le ga ti on s. On

th e co nt rary, Sm it h pr es en te d t h e st at em en ts of a nu m be r of wit ne ss es an d

do cu m en ta ry ev id en ce to ba ck hi s ve rs io n of th e rel ev an t ev en ts

. Sm it h sa id th at he

ne ve r in te nd ed to de pr iv e Ph il li ps of hi s p ro pe rty and ne ve r st ol e o r di rect ed ot he rs

to st eal it , whi ch was s im il arl y av erre d b y

ot he r in di vi du al s.

In su m , Ph il li ps fai le d to crea te a ge nu in e is su e of m at eri al fact wit h reg ard to

th e di sp os it iv e is su e of Sm it h’s in te nt , b y fai li ng to pr ov id e ev id en ce fro m whi ch a

reas on a b l e ju r y co ul d fin d th at Sm it h in te nt io na ll y act ed to de pr iv e Ph il li ps of hi s

pr op ert y wit ho ut du e pr oc es s. Acco rd in gl y , th e di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y gr an te d

su m m ary jud gm en t t o S m it h o n P hi ll ip s’s Bi ve ns cla im , and we affi rm

.

5Nex t, we fin d no m eri t in Ph i l l i p s ’s cl ai m th at th e di st ric t co ur t vi ol at ed

Fed .R.Ci v.P

. 72 by fai li ng to co ns id er hi s ob jecti on s to th e m a g i s t r a t e ’s rep or t an d

reco m m en da ti on

. “ W he re an ap p e l l a nt no ti ces th e ap pe al of a sp eci fie d jud gm en t

on ly, th is co ur t ha s no juri sd ic ti on to rev ie w ot he r jud gm en ts or is su es whi ch are no t

ex pr es sl y ref

e r red to an d whi ch are no t im pl ie dl y in te nd ed fo r ap pe al .” Tim so n v.

Sam ps on , 51 8 F.3 d 87 0, 8 7 4 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 08 ) (al te rat io n, ci ta ti on , an d qu ot at io n

om it te d)

. “[E ]x c ep t in cert ai n types of cas es , th is ci rcu it ha s reco gn iz ed th at si nc e

on ly a fin al jud gm en t or or de r is ap pe al ab le

, th e ap pe al fro m a fin al jud gm en t dr aws

in qu es ti on al l pr io r no n- fin al or de rs an d ru li ng s whi ch pr od uc ed th e jud gm en t.”

Barf ie ld v. Bri ert on , 88 3 F.2 d 92 3, 93 0 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 89 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d)

. Howev er,

no in t e n t t o ap pe al fro m an or de r th at ha d no t y et be en en te red whe n th e no ti ce of

ap pe al was fil ed can be as cert ai ne d, be cau se th e in te nt to ap pe al th at fu tu re or de r was

no t ap pa ren t, an d rev ie w on th e m eri ts wou ld pr ejud ic e th e ot he r pa rty. McDo ug al d

v. Je ns on , 78 6 F.2 d 14 65

, 14 74 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 86 ); se e al so LaCh an ce v. Duf fy ’s Draft

Hou se , I nc ., 1 46 F.3 d 8 32 , 83 6- 38 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ) (h ol di ng th at a no ti ce o f ap pe al

fro m an or de r gr an ti ng su m m ary jud gm en t co ul d no t co ve r a su bs eq ue nt or de r

award in g at to rn ey ’s fees

, whe n th e no ti ce of a p p e a l w as fil ed be fo re th e m ot io n

req ue st in g at to rn ey ’s fees ). A no ti ce of ap pe al m us t de si gn at e an ex is te nt jud gm en t

or or de r, no t on e th at is m erel y ex pe c te d or th at is

, or sh ou ld be

, wit hi n th e

6ap pe ll an t’s co nt em pl at io n whe n th e no ti ce of ap pe al is fil ed

. Bo gl e v. Oran ge Co un ty

Bd . of C ou nt y

Co m m ’rs, 16 2 F .3d 65 3, 6 61 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ).

Here, P h i l l i p s fil ed hi s no ti ce of ap pe al be fo re th e di st ric t co ur t ru le d on hi s

m ot io ns co nc ern in g hi s la ck of an op po rtu ni ty to ob ject to th e m ag is tra te ’s rep or t an d

reco m m en da ti on

. His no ti ce of ap pe al co ul d no t ha ve cl earl y in te nd ed to ch al le ng e

th e de te rm i n a t i on th at an y ob jecti on s he fil ed to th e m ag is tra te ’s rep or t were

u n t i m el y , as th e no ti ce of ap pe al was fil ed be fo re th e di st ric t co ur t so ru le d. S e e

McDo ug al d

, 7 8 6 F.2 d at 14 74 ; se e al so LaCh an ce, 14 6 F.3 d at 83 6- 38 ; Bo gl e, 16 2

F

. 3 d at 66 1. The de te rm in at io n he se ek s to ch al le ng e al so rel at ed to m ot io n s f i l e d

aft er th e su m

m ary jud gm en t or de r he de si gn at ed in hi s no ti ce of ap pe al

, whi ch m ean s

th at th e un res ol ve d m ot io ns are no t dr awn up fo r ap pe al by th e m en ti on of th at or de r.

The refo re, we la ck juri sd ic ti on to co ns id er Ph il li ps ’s cl ai m co nc ern in g th e di st ric t

co ur t’s fa il ur e to co ns id er his ob jecti on s, and we di sm is s hi s app eal in th is res pe ct

.

F i na ll y , we reject Ph il li ps ’s c la im -- rai se d fo r th e fir st ti m e on ap pe al -- th at

th e di st ric t co ur t im

pr op erl y di sm is se d h i s st at e la w co nv ers io n cl ai m whe n it

pr op erl y res te d up on fed eral di ve rs it y juri sd ic ti on

. “ It is th e bu rd en of th e pa rty

se ek in g fe de ral juri sd ic ti on to de m on st rat e th at di ve rs it y ex is ts by a p rep on de ran ce

of th e ev id en ce.” Mo li no s Vall e Del Ci ba o, C. po r A. v. Lam a, 63 3 F.3 d 13 30

, 13 40

(1 1t h C i r

. 20 11 ) (ci ta ti on s om it te d)

. As a ge ne ral ru le

, in a ci vi l cas e we wil l no t

7co ns id er an is su e on ap pe al th at was no t rai se d be fo re th e d i s t ric t co ur t. See BUC

In te rn

. Co rp

. v. In t’l Yach t Co un ci l Lt d

. , 48 9 F.3 d 11 29

, 11 40 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 07 ).

Howev er, “ su bjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on , be cau se it in vo lv es a co ur t’s p owe r to he ar a

cas e, can ne ve r be fo rfei te d or waiv ed .” Arb au gh v. Y & H Co rp ., 54 6 U.S. 50 0, 51 4

(2 00 6) (ci ta ti on an d q uo ta ti on om it te d)

.

To th e ex te nt we rev ie w Ph il li ps ’s d i v e r s i t y arg um en t be cau se it rai se s a

juri sd ic ti on al is su e, it is m eri tl es s. He fai le d to ba se hi s Fl or id a st at e la w co nv ers io n

cl ai m up on di ve r si ty juri sd ic ti on be fo re th e di st ric t co ur t, he ex pl ic it ly ba se d hi s

Bi ve ns cl ai m on fed eral qu es ti on juri sd ic ti on , an d he ex pl ic it ly ba se d hi s co nv ers io n

cl ai m on su pp le m en ta l juri sd ic ti on th eret o. In so far as th e d i s t ric t co ur t m ad e an

im pl ic it de te rm in at io n t h a t Ph il li ps fai le d to m eet hi s bu rd en to sh ow di ve rs it y

juri sd ic ti on fo r hi s co nv ers io n cl ai m , by di s m is si ng it pu rs ua nt to it s di sc ret io na ry

su pp le m en ta l juri sd ic ti on au th or it y , it di d no t err. See Mo li no s, 63 3 F.3 d at 13 40

(b ur de n on pa rty se ek in g juri sd ic ti on ). Ph il li ps f a i l ed to al le ge th at he an d Sm it h

were do m ic il ed in di ffer en t st at es an d he fai le d to in vo ke di ve rs it y juri sd ic ti on as th e

juri sd ic ti on al ba si s fo r hi s co nv ers io n cl ai m

. He, th eref or e, fai le d to m eet hi s bu rd en

to de m on st r a t e d iv ers it y juri sd ic ti on by a pr ep on de ran ce of th e ev id en ce. See id

.

Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm

.

AFFIRMED I N PART, DISMI SSED I N PART.

8