Court Opinion

ID: 9554253
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-08 15:00:58.052747+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:26:00.167598
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-12380   Document: 26-1    Date Filed: 08/08/2023   Page: 1 of 4

                                                [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                         ____________________

                              No. 22-12380
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

       TIFFANY P. RANGE,
                                                   Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       U.S. POSTMASTER GENERAL,

                                                 Defendant-Appellee,

       DEAJHE HUTCHINSON, et al.,

                                                          Defendants.

                         ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-12380        Document: 26-1         Date Filed: 08/08/2023   Page: 2 of 4

       2                         Opinion of the Court                   22-12380

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Northern District of Georgia
                      D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cv-02755-VMC
                            ____________________

       Before ROSENBAUM, JILL PRYOR, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Tiffany Range, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s
       order dismissing her second amended complaint with prejudice. In
       a report and recommendation, the magistrate judge concluded that
       the second amended complaint should be dismissed because it
       failed to state a claim for relief and Range had failed to comply with
       court orders. When the magistrate judge issued the report and rec-
       ommendation, he warned the parties of the need to object, stating
       that “[a] party [who] fails to object . . . waives the right to challenge
       on appeal the District Court’s order based on any factual or legal
       conclusions in the report and recommendation.” Doc. 25 at 1–2
       (citing 11th Cir. R. 3-1). 1 Range never objected. The district court
       ultimately adopted the report and recommendation, granted the
       motion to dismiss, and dismissed the second amended complaint
       with prejudice. Range now appeals.
             Because Range failed to object to the magistrate judge’s re-
       port and recommendation, she waived her right to appeal the dis-
       missal of her second amended complaint. Under 28 U.S.C.

       1 “Doc.” numbers refer to the district court’s docket entries.
USCA11 Case: 22-12380      Document: 26-1       Date Filed: 08/08/2023     Page: 3 of 4

       22-12380                Opinion of the Court                          3

       § 636(b)(1), “any party may serve and file written objections” to a
       magistrate judge’s report and recommendations within 14 days of
       being served with the report and recommendation. The district
       court must then “make a de novo determination of those portions
       of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations
       to which objection is made.” Id. But under our Circuit’s rules, a
       party who fails to object to a magistrate judge’s report and recom-
       mendation “waives the right to challenge on appeal the district
       court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclu-
       sions.” 11th Cir. R. 3-1. Still, even without “proper objection,” we
       “may review on appeal for plain error if necessary in the interests
       of justice.” Id.
              Because Range failed to object to the magistrate judge’s re-
       port and recommendation after being warned “of all of the conse-
       quences on appeal for failing to object,” she waived any challenge
       she could have made to the adverse ruling. See Harrigan v. Metro
       Dade Police Dep’t Station #4, 977 F.3d 1185, 1192 (11th Cir. 2020)
       (internal quotation marks omitted). Although we may review the
       rulings of the district court for plain error, Range does not ask us
       to do so. Indeed, her brief never acknowledges the magistrate
       judge’s report and recommendation, much less argues that it is nec-
       essary in the interests of justice for us to review the district court’s
       decision after she failed to object. We thus will not consider this
       issue, which Range has abandoned. See Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d
       870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008) (noting that “issues not briefed on appeal
       by a pro se litigant are deemed abandoned”).
              AFFIRMED.
USCA11 Case: 22-12380   Document: 26-1   Date Filed: 08/08/2023   Page: 4 of 4

       4                  Opinion of the Court              22-12380