Court Opinion

ID: 9382400
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-27 17:00:44.074721+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:39.187725
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 21-14029    Document: 48-1     Date Filed: 03/27/2023   Page: 1 of 2

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 21-14029
                          ____________________

       BOBBY L. CANTRELL,
                                                     Plaintiff-Appellant,
       versus
       DACA SPECIALTY SERVICES,
       an ASRC Industrial Services Company,

                                                   Defendant-Appellee.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                    for the Northern District of Georgia
                    D.C. Docket No. 4:18-cv-00271-TCB
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 21-14029       Document: 48-1       Date Filed: 03/27/2023      Page: 2 of 2

       2                        Opinion of the Court                   21-14029

       Before JILL PRYOR, GRANT, and HULL, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Bobby Cantrell appeals the jury verdict in favor of his former
       employer, Daca Specialty Services (“DACA”), on his age
       discrimination claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment
       Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621–634. On appeal, Cantrell argues that:
       (1) the district court abused its discretion in excluding three items
       of his proffered evidence of age discrimination; (2) the jury
       instructions were erroneous; and (3) the district court judge erred
       by failing to recuse himself.
               After review, and with the benefit of oral argument, we
       conclude that Cantrell abandoned his evidentiary challenges by
       failing to properly raise these issues in his initial appellate brief. See
       Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 681 (11th Cir.
       2014) (“We have long held that an appellant abandons a claim
       when he either makes only passing references to it or raises it in a
       perfunctory manner without supporting arguments and
       authority.”). Cantrell also has not shown any reversible error in
       the district court’s jury instructions or the district court judge’s
       decision not to sua sponte recuse himself. Accordingly, we affirm
       the jury verdict. We also deny DACA’s motion for sanctions
       against Cantrell.
              AFFIRMED.