Court Opinion

ID: 9950208
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-13 16:01:15.54515+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:36:06.628310
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-11337    Document: 26-1     Date Filed: 03/13/2024   Page: 1 of 7

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-11337
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       ANDREW HORACE,
                                                     Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       MD NOW MEDICAL CENTERS, INC.,

                                                   Defendant-Appellee.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                    D.C. Docket No. 9:22-cv-81965-DMM
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-11337         Document: 26-1        Date Filed: 03/13/2024         Page: 2 of 7

       2                             Opinion of the Court                   23-11337

       Before WILSON, LUCK, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Andrew Horace, proceeding pro se, appeals the district
       court’s order dismissing his third amended complaint against MD
       Now Medical Centers, Inc. (“MD Now”), under Federal Rule of
       Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). On appeal, Horace argues that (1) the
       district court erred when it excluded evidence of his medical rec-
       ords and expert witness statements and (2) the court failed to apply
       the correct law. For the following reasons, we affirm.
                                I.       BACKGROUND 1
              Horace initiated this case against MD Now in Florida state
       court on March 22, 2022. Attached to this initial complaint is what
       appears to be a medical provider’s note following Horace’s visit for
       a “[c]ontusion of nose.” Horace subsequently amended his com-
       plaint several times.
             In his third amended complaint, ﬁled on November 21, 2022,
       Horace alleged the following facts. On March 5, 2022, Horace went
       to MD Now, an “Urgent Care” operator, to have a PCR COVID test
       done. Jaylen Williams, an MD Now employee, met Horace in the
       lobby and appeared dissatisﬁed and had “poor body demeanor.”

       1 Because we are reviewing a dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), we take the factual

       allegations in Horace’s complaint as true and construe them in the light most
       favorable to Horace as the plaintiff. Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 872 (11th
       Cir. 2008).
USCA11 Case: 23-11337      Document: 26-1      Date Filed: 03/13/2024     Page: 3 of 7

       23-11337               Opinion of the Court                          3

       Williams gave Horace an uncomfortable feeling, but Horace de-
       cided to go to the medical room with Williams. Williams asked
       Horace to sit at the edge of his chair and tilt his head back, at which
       time Williams “forcefully inserted the swab in [his] left nostril in a
       stabbing action.” Horace moved his body back, and his eyes began
       to water. Williams then told Horace that the doctor would see him
       shortly. Dr. Rami T. Mansour then entered the room. Horace told
       Dr. Mansour what happened, but Dr. Mansour did not show him
       compassion. Horace then reported what happened to the front
       desk and returned to the center to complain to the manager. Ac-
       cording to Horace, he ﬁled a complaint with the U.S. Department
       of Health and Human Services Oﬃce for Civil Rights on March 9,
       2022, which issued a closure letter to MD Now to share with its
       staﬀ as part of an ongoing training to be in compliance with appli-
       cable nondiscrimination laws.
              Horace alleged that MD Now “must abide by Federal Civil
       Rights laws,” but did not do so. According to Horace, Kathy
       Vaughn assured him that Williams was no longer employed by MD
       Now following his complaint. Horace alleged that Williams’s con-
       duct towards him was “[u]nequivocally discriminatory.” He cited
       Article 25 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human
       Rights, which lists medical care as a human right, and claimed that
       Williams violated that right.
              Horace alleged two claims against MD Now. First, he al-
       leged that MD Now violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
       1964 by discriminating against him on the basis of sexual
USCA11 Case: 23-11337     Document: 26-1     Date Filed: 03/13/2024   Page: 4 of 7

       4                     Opinion of the Court                23-11337

       orientation. Horace claimed that: his sexual orientation was “not
       consistent with [MD Now’s] perception of acceptable gender
       roles”; that his voice was “high pitched” and he appeared “well
       groomed” on the day of the alleged incident; that Williams imme-
       diately categorized him as gay when he met him based on his ap-
       pearance; and that Williams caused him intentional harm because
       of his sexual orientation. Second, he alleged that MD Now violated
       his due process rights under the Fifth Amendment when MD Now
       subjected him to a discriminatory environment, intentionally in-
       ﬂicted him harm because of his sexual orientation, and did not pro-
       vide the required standard of care. Horace did not attach any med-
       ical records or expert witness statements to his third amended com-
       plaint.
              MD Now removed the case to federal court. Then, MD
       Now moved to dismiss Horace’s third amended complaint. MD
       Now argued that there were no facts alleged that showed that Wil-
       liams knew of Horace’s sexual orientation, or acted thereupon, be-
       yond a speculative level. MD Now also argued that there were no
       objective facts showing that Horace’s sexual orientation played a
       role during Williams’s nasal swab. As to the Title VII claim, MD
       Now contended that Horace failed to state a claim because Title
       VII only prohibits unlawful employment practices and noted that
       Horace was not its employee or applicant. As to the Fifth Amend-
       ment claim, MD Now argued that the claim failed because the Fifth
       Amendment does not apply to private actors such as itself. Horace
       opposed MD Now’s motion.
USCA11 Case: 23-11337      Document: 26-1       Date Filed: 03/13/2024     Page: 5 of 7

       23-11337                Opinion of the Court                          5

              The district court granted MD Now’s motion to dismiss. As
       to the Title VII claim, the court concluded that Horace could not
       avail himself of Title VII given that he did not allege to be MD
       Now’s employee. As to the Fifth Amendment claim, the court
       found that the claim failed because the Fifth Amendment restricts
       government actions and MD Now is a private institution. And even
       construed broadly under another federal law, the district court
       found his claims of discrimination were too speculative to survive
       dismissal. The court found that any further amendments would be
       futile. Accordingly, the district court dismissed Horace’s third
       amended complaint with prejudice.
              Horace then appealed and attached to his notice of appeal a
       receipt of payment to an urgent care center for “[n]asal swelling”
       and the medical provider’s note following his visit for “[c]ontusion
       of nose” that was attached to his initial complaint.
                                 II.    ANALYSIS
               We review de novo a district court’s ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6)
       motion to dismiss, “accepting the allegations in the complaint as
       true and construing them in the light most favorable to the plain-
       tiﬀ.” Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 872 (11th Cir. 2008). To sur-
       vive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a complaint must allege suf-
       ﬁcient facts to state a claim that is plausible on its face. Ashcroft v.
       Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
              While we hold pro se pleadings to a less stringent standard
       than pleadings drafted by attorneys and thus liberally construe pro
       se pleadings, we will not “serve as de facto counsel for a party” or
USCA11 Case: 23-11337       Document: 26-1      Date Filed: 03/13/2024      Page: 6 of 7

       6                       Opinion of the Court                   23-11337

       “rewrite an otherwise deﬁcient pleading in order to sustain an ac-
       tion.” Campbell v. Air Jam. Ltd., 760 F.3d 1165, 1168-69 (11th Cir.
       2014) (quoting GJR Invs., Inc. v. County of Escambia, 132 F.3d 1359,
       1369 (11th Cir. 1998)). Additionally, issues not clearly raised by a
       pro se litigant are deemed abandoned. Timson, 518 F.3d at 874. A
       claim is abandoned on appeal when it is made in passing or raised
       in a perfunctory manner without supporting arguments or author-
       ity. Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 681 (11th Cir.
       2014). Further, an issue that was not raised in the district court and
       is raised for the ﬁrst time on appeal is considered forfeited, and we
       will not address it absent extraordinary circumstances. Access Now,
       Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1331–32 (11th Cir. 2004) (noting
       that we may exercise our discretion to consider a forfeited issue
       when: (1) the issue involves a pure question of law and refusal to
       consider it would result in a miscarriage of justice; (2) the party
       lacked an opportunity to raise the issue at the district court level;
       (3) the interest of substantial justice is at stake; (4) the proper reso-
       lution is beyond any doubt; or (5) the issue presents signiﬁcant
       questions of general impact or of great public concern).
               Here, Horace has forfeited his argument that the district
       court erred when it did not consider his medical records and expert
       witness statements because he did not raise this argument to the
       district court nor demonstrates on appeal that any of the Access
       Now exceptions to forfeiture apply. See id. Further, Horace has
       abandoned his argument that the court failed to apply the correct
       law by making only passing reference to this argument in his initial
       brief. Sapuppo, 739 F.3d at 681; Timson, 518 F.3d at 874. Indeed,
USCA11 Case: 23-11337     Document: 26-1     Date Filed: 03/13/2024    Page: 7 of 7

       23-11337              Opinion of the Court                         7

       Horace does not explain how the district court failed to apply the
       correct law, state what the correct law is, or describe how any evi-
       dence would demonstrate that he pled a plausible claim for relief
       under Title VII or the Fifth Amendment.
             Accordingly, we aﬃrm the district court’s dismissal order.
             AFFIRMED.