Court Opinion

ID: 9367332
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-31 16:02:36.41522+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:59.443089
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-12007   Document: 22-1    Date Filed: 01/31/2023   Page: 1 of 3

                                                [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                         ____________________

                               No. 22-12007
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

       MARK GRISSOM,
                                                   Plaintiff-Appellant,
       versus
       JOHN MERKLE,
       N WHITAKER,
       TONY DAVIS,
       LESLIE WIGGINS,
       SCOTT ISSACS, et al.,

                                               Defendants-Appellees.

                         ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-12007      Document: 22-1      Date Filed: 01/31/2023     Page: 2 of 3

       2                       Opinion of the Court                 22-12007

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of Alabama
                     D.C. Docket No. 2:21-cv-01633-ACA
                           ____________________

       Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, NEWSOM, and ANDERSON,
       Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Mark Grissom appeals the dismissal of his pro se amended
       complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Grissom complained that the de-
       fendants violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organiza-
       tions Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq., and various constitutional rights
       stemming from his termination from a Veterans Affairs medical
       center. The district court dismissed the complaint because the Civil
       Service Reform Act of 1978, 5 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq., barred his chal-
       lenge to an adverse employment action couched as racketeering
       and constitutional violations. The defendants move for summary
       affirmance and for a stay of the briefing schedule. Because “the po-
       sition of [the defendants] . . . is clearly right as a matter of law so
       that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the
       case,” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th
       Cir. 1969), we grant the motion for summary affirmance and deny
       as moot the motion to stay the briefing schedule.
              “When an appellant fails to challenge properly on appeal
       one of the grounds on which the district court based its judgment,
       he is deemed to have abandoned any challenge of that ground, and
USCA11 Case: 22-12007     Document: 22-1     Date Filed: 01/31/2023    Page: 3 of 3

       22-12007               Opinion of the Court                       3

       it follows that the judgment is due to be affirmed.” Sapuppo v. All-
       state Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 680 (11th Cir. 2014). For an
       argument to be sufficiently briefed on appeal, the argument must
       include the appellant’s “contentions and the reasons for them, with
       citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which the
       appellant relies.” Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A).
               Summary affirmance is appropriate. Grissom has aban-
       doned any objection to the dismissal of his amended complaint for
       lack of jurisdiction by failing to raise any meaningful argument
       against it. Even liberally construed, Grissom’s assertions that the
       district court “impeded due process and equal access” and “effec-
       tively denied [his] constitutional rights” by “recreating” his com-
       plaint into something that it could dismiss are vague and conclu-
       sory. The argument section of Grissom’s opening brief, which
       spans only a few pages and provides a list of 13 conclusory state-
       ments, contains no citations to authority or portions of the record
       nor any explanation of why the district court erred. As a result,
       there is no substantial question as to the outcome of the case, and
       the defendants’ position that we must affirm is correct as a matter
       of law. See Groendyke, 406 F.2d at 1162.
             We GRANT the motion for summary affirmance, AFFIRM
       the dismissal of Grissom’s amended complaint, and DENY AS
       MOOT the motion to stay the briefing schedule.