Case Name: Robert L. REHBERGER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William (Hal) CRAIG, Flint Circuit Superior Court Judge, Tommy K. Floyd, Flint Circuit District Attorney, et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-01-31
Citations: 215 F. App'x 932
Docket Number: No. 06-13787
Parties: Robert L. REHBERGER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William (Hal) CRAIG, Flint Circuit Superior Court Judge, Tommy K. Floyd, Flint Circuit District Attorney, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before BIRCH, BLACK and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 215
Pages: 932–932

Head Matter:
Robert L. REHBERGER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William (Hal) CRAIG, Flint Circuit Superior Court Judge, Tommy K. Floyd, Flint Circuit District Attorney, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 06-13787
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Jan. 31, 2007.
Robert L. Rehberger, Unadilla, GA, pro se.
Before BIRCH, BLACK and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Robert L. Rehberger, a pro se state prisoner, appeals the district court's denial of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion to vacate and his connected motion for leave to file for a three-judge panel, related to his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action. On appeal, Rehberger only argues the merits of the underlying claims raised in his original § 1983 action.
Litigants who fail to raise issues on appeal have abandoned those issues. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Swann, 27 F.3d 1539, 1542 (11th Cir.1994). However, briefs should be read liberally to ascertain the issues raised. Id.
Rehberger has failed to present any argument the district court abused its discretion in denying his Rule 60(b) motion or in denying his motion for leave to file for a three-judge panel, therefore, he has abandoned these claims. Id. at 1542. Even construing Rehberger's brief liberally as implicit arguments against the denial of his Rule 60(b) motion, the district court did not abuse its discretion because we previously affirmed the order he sought to vacate. Accordingly, because the arguments Rehberger raises are not properly before us and he has abandoned all other arguments, we affirm the district court's order.
AFFIRMED.