Court Opinion

ID: 9954031
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-25 16:00:56.410323+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:11:44.921446
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-12257   Document: 21-1    Date Filed: 03/25/2024   Page: 1 of 4

                                             [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                 In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                         ____________________

                              No. 23-12257
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

       DEBORAH KILGORE,
       RHONDOLYN KILGORE,
                                                 Plaintiﬀs-Appellants,
       versus
       THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY OFFICE OF ATLANTA, et
       al.,

                                                          Defendants,

       AMERICA, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OFFICE,
USCA11 Case: 23-12257       Document: 21-1      Date Filed: 03/25/2024      Page: 2 of 4

       2                       Opinion of the Court                   23-12257

                                                         Defendant-Appellee.

                             ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of Georgia
                     D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cv-05327-LMM
                           ____________________

       Before JORDAN, LAGOA, and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Deborah and Rhondolyn Kilgore appeal following the dis-
       trict court’s dismissal of their civil suit for failure to obey court or-
       ders and for want of prosecution. The Government moves for
       summary affirmance, asserting the Kilgores have failed to preserve
       any challenge to the district court’s order.
               Appellants can abandon issues by failing to challenge them
       on appeal. See Irwin v. Hawk, 40 F.3d 347, 347 n.1 (11th Cir. 1994).
       Appellants can also abandon claims by presenting them only in
       “passing references” or “in a perfunctory manner without support-
       ing arguments and authority.” Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins., Co.,
       739 F.3d 678, 681 (11th Cir. 2014). “[S]imply stating that an issue
       exists,” without providing reasoning and citation to authority that
       the appellants rely on, “constitutes abandonment of that issue.” Id.
       (quoting Singh v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 561 F.3d 1275, 1278 (11th Cir.
       2009)).
USCA11 Case: 23-12257         Document: 21-1        Date Filed: 03/25/2024         Page: 3 of 4

       23-12257                  Opinion of the Court                                3

              Pro se pleadings are held to a “less stringent” standard than
       pleadings drafted by attorneys and will be liberally construed.
       Campbell v. Air Jam. Ltd., 760 F.3d 1165, 1168 (11th Cir. 2014). How-
       ever, we will not “serve as de facto counsel for a party [or] rewrite
       an otherwise deficient pleading in order to sustain an action.” Id.
       at 1168–69 (quoting GJR Invs., Inc. v. Cnty. of Escambia, Fla., 132 F.3d
       1359, 1369 (11th Cir. 1998)).
               The Government is clearly correct as a matter of law that
       the Kilgores have abandoned any challenge to the relevant district
       court order in their initial brief. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis,
       406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969) 1 (stating summary disposition is
       appropriate where “the position of one of the parties is clearly right
       as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to
       the outcome of the case”). The Kilgores’ initial brief identifies two
       “issues” but fails to offer supporting argument on either issue
       and—as the Government notes—neither issue, even liberally con-
       strued, relates to the reason for dismissal of the Kilgores’ suit. See
       Campbell, 760 F.3d at 1168. Under these circumstances, and even
       with liberal construction, the Government is clearly correct that
       the Kilgores have abandoned any challenge to the dismissal of their
       suit in their initial brief. Sapuppo, 739 F.3d at 681; Irwin, 40 F.3d at
       347 n.1. Because the Government’s position is clearly correct as a
       matter of law, there is no substantial question as to the outcome of

       1 In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc),

       this Court adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Cir-
       cuit handed down prior to close of business on September 30, 1981.
USCA11 Case: 23-12257       Document: 21-1       Date Filed: 03/25/2024      Page: 4 of 4

       4                       Opinion of the Court                    23-12257

       the case, and we grant the motion for summary affirmance. 2 See
       Groendyke Transp., 406 F.2d at 1162.
              AFFIRMED.

       2 The Government’s motion to stay the briefing schedule is DENIED as moot.