Court Opinion

ID: 9384973
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-05 18:01:13.960587+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:57.980446
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-13033    Document: 12-1     Date Filed: 04/05/2023   Page: 1 of 3

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-13033
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       PERSONNA WALKER,
                                                     Plaintiff-Appellant,
       versus
       WESLEY PEACH,

                                                   Defendant-Appellee.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Middle District of Georgia
                     D.C. Docket No. 7:22-cv-00067-HL
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-13033      Document: 12-1     Date Filed: 04/05/2023     Page: 2 of 3

       2                      Opinion of the Court                 22-13033

       Before JORDAN, NEWSOM, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
             Personna Walker filed an employment-discrimination suit.
       Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the district court dismissed
       the complaint as frivolous. Proceeding pro se, Walker appeals.
               We review the court’s screening determination that the
       complaint is frivolous for an abuse of discretion. Miller v. Donald,
       541 F.3d 1091, 1100 (11th Cir. 2008). Although pro se pleadings are
       to be liberally construed and held to a less stringent standard than
       counseled pleadings, id., “issues not briefed on appeal by a pro se
       litigant are [still] deemed abandoned,” Timson v. Sampson, 518
       F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008). An appellant abandons an issue by
       failing to “plainly and prominently” raise it in her opening brief to
       us. See Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 681
       (11th Cir. 2014). An appellant also abandons an issue when she
       makes only passing references to it or raises it in a perfunctory man-
       ner without supporting arguments and authority. Id. at 681–83.
            Even liberally construed, Walker’s brief fails to “plainly and
       prominently” raise any issues for appeal and does so, at best, only
USCA11 Case: 22-13033         Document: 12-1         Date Filed: 04/05/2023         Page: 3 of 3

       22-13033                   Opinion of the Court                                3

       “perfuctor[ily].” The “Argument” section of her brief comprises
       two pages listing four legal principles 1 and three other sentences. 2
              Their application to Walker’s case is not readily apparent.
       We must conclude, therefore, that Walker has not properly raised
       any issues for us to decide.
               AFFIRMED.

       1 The brief quotes or paraphrases: (1) a discrimination treatise discussing the
       availability of equitable tolling, (2) a case stating that principle, see Baldwin
       Cnty. Welcome Ctr. v. Brown, 466 U.S. 147, 151 (1984), (3) a regulation allow-
       ing the EEOC to assist complainants even after sending a right-to-sue notice,
       29 C.F.R. § 1601.28, and (4) a Georgia statute describing when its statute of
       limitation begins running, Ga. Code Ann. § 9-3-96.
       2 The  first sentence says: “In this instance, the ruling was determined without
       full consideration of the law.” Br. of Appellant at 4. The final two sentences
       read: “As a result, the judge tolling was based upon the complaint; not on the
       right to sue letter issued by the EEOC. Dismissing the complaint with failure
       to state a claim and the defendant is immune from relief.” Id. at 5.