Court Opinion

ID: 9554613
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-09 16:01:34.009221+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:35:41.045549
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-13577   Document: 47-1    Date Filed: 08/09/2023   Page: 1 of 5

                                                [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                         ____________________

                              No. 22-13577
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

       JOHNNIE DEMOND JACKSON,
                                                   Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       SHERIFF KEVIN R. SPROUL,
       LT CARLA WATSON,
       PHOEBE PUTNEY HOSPITAL,
       NURSE AUDREY JOINER,
       NURSE LYNN MONTGERARD,

                                                Defendants-Appellees,

       CPT JERROMA WILLIAMS, et al.,
USCA11 Case: 22-13577      Document: 47-1       Date Filed: 08/09/2023     Page: 2 of 5

       2                       Opinion of the Court                  22-13577

                                                                 Defendants.

                            ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Georgia
                   D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cv-00028-LAG-TQL
                           ____________________

       Before JORDAN, NEWSOM, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Johnnie Jackson, proceeding pro se, appeals the district
       court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Sheriff Kevin
       Sproul, Shirley Adams, Carla Watson, and Dominique Kendricks
       (collectively the “jail officers”), as well as in favor of Phoebe Putney
       Memorial Hospital (“PPMH”), Lynn Montgerard, Audrea Joiner,
       Escolethia Miller, and Sherryl Haugabrook (collectively the “med-
       ical providers”), on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims. After responding
       to the motions for summary judgment, Mr. Jackson filed motions
       to supplement the record, which the district court denied. On ap-
       peal Mr. Jackson argues that the court erred in granting summary
       judgment for the jail officers and medical providers on his § 1983
       claims alleging deliberate indifference as to food and medical
       needs, denial of access to mail, failure to train nurses, and retalia-
       tion. He also contends that the court erred in denying his motion
       to supplement the record, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15.
USCA11 Case: 22-13577      Document: 47-1      Date Filed: 08/09/2023     Page: 3 of 5

       22-13577               Opinion of the Court                          3

               We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary judg-
       ment and construe all facts and draw all reasonable inferences in
       favor of the non-moving party. See Burton v. Tampa Hous. Auth.,
       271 F.3d 1274, 1276-77 (11th Cir. 2001). We review the denial of a
       motion to supplement for abuse of discretion. See Shipner v. E. Air
       Lines, Inc., 868 F.2d 401, 407 (11th Cir. 1989).
              A party who fails to object to a magistrate judge’s findings
       or recommendations contained in a report and recommendation in
       accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives the
       right to challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on un-
       objected-to factual findings and legal conclusions, if the party was
       informed of the time period for objecting and the consequences on
       appeal for failing to object. See 11th Cir. R. 3-1. However, in the
       absence of a proper objection, we may review the issue for plain
       error if necessary in the interests of justice. See id.
               Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than at-
       torney-drafted pleadings and are, therefore, liberally construed. See
       Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998).
       The leniency afforded pro se litigants with liberal construction does
       not give a court license to act as de facto counsel or permit it to re-
       write an otherwise deficient pleading to sustain an action. Campbell
       v. Air Jamaica Ltd., 760 F.3d 1165, 1168-69 (11th Cir. 2014). “[I]ssues
       not briefed on appeal by a pro se litigant are deemed abandoned.”
       Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008) (citation omit-
       ted). An appellant fails to adequately brief a claim when he does
       not “plainly and prominently raise it.” Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian
USCA11 Case: 22-13577      Document: 47-1       Date Filed: 08/09/2023     Page: 4 of 5

       4                       Opinion of the Court                  22-13577

       Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 681 (11th Cir. 2014) (quotation marks omit-
       ted). An appellant likewise abandons a claim when he “either
       makes only passing references to it or raises it in a perfunctory man-
       ner without supporting arguments and authority.” Id.; see also
       United States v. Campbell, 26 F.4th 860, 873 (11th Cir. 2022) (en banc)
       (holding that issues not raised in an initial brief are deemed for-
       feited and will not be addressed absent extraordinary circum-
       stances).
               As an initial matter, Mr. Jackson has waived any argument
       as to his claims for inadequate nutrition, mail interference, retalia-
       tion, and failure to train because the magistrate judge informed
       him of the timeline for objecting and he failed to object to the mag-
       istrate judge’s legal conclusions regarding those claims. Further,
       Mr. Jackson has abandoned on appeal his argument as to his claim
       for inadequate medical care by failing to offer supporting argu-
       ments or authority. See Sappupo, 739 F.3d at 681.
               Turning to the denial of the motion to supplement,
       “[d]istrict courts enjoy broad discretion in deciding how best to
       manage the cases before them.” Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp.,
       123 F.3d 1353, 1366 (11th Cir. 1997). “[A]bsent an affirmative show-
       ing by the non-moving party of excusable neglect according to Rule
       6(b) a court does not abuse its discretion when it refuses to accept
       out-of-time affidavits” filed in opposition to a summary judgment
       motion. See Farina v. Mission Inv. Tr., 615 F.2d 1068, 1076 (5th Cir.
       1980); see also Clinkscales v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 831 F.2d 1565, 1568
USCA11 Case: 22-13577      Document: 47-1     Date Filed: 08/09/2023     Page: 5 of 5

       22-13577               Opinion of the Court                         5

       (11th Cir. 1987) (same); Farina v. Mission Inv. Tr., 615 F.2d 1068,
       1076 (5th Cir. 1980) (same).
               Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion in deny-
       ing Mr. Jackson’s motions to supplement the record because he
       failed to show excusable neglect. He did not, for example, explain
       why he was unable to submit his evidence with his declarations.
       Further, Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d) is inapplicable because summary
       judgment motions are not pleadings. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a).
             AFFIRMED.