Court Opinion

ID: 9943057
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-22 18:02:16.297546+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:46:00.561351
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-12645    Document: 27-1     Date Filed: 02/21/2024   Page: 1 of 3

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-12645
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       REGINA HEIGHT,
                                                     Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,

                                                   Defendant-Appellee.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Florida
                   D.C. Docket No. 8:19-cv-02753-MSS-JSS
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-12645      Document: 27-1     Date Filed: 02/21/2024     Page: 2 of 3

       2                      Opinion of the Court                 23-12645

       Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and BRASHER and ABUDU, Cir-
       cuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Regina Height appeals pro se the summary judgment in favor
       of the Department of Veterans Affairs and against her complaint of
       disability discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environ-
       ment. The Department moves for summary affirmance. We grant
       that motion and affirm.
              Summary disposition is appropriate either where time is of
       the essence, such as “situations where important public policy is-
       sues are involved or those where rights delayed are rights denied,”
       or where “the position of one of the parties is clearly right as a
       matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the
       outcome of the case, or where, as is more frequently the case, the
       appeal is frivolous.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158,
       1161, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969).
              Summary affirmance is appropriate. Height has abandoned
       any challenge to the summary judgment entered against her by fail-
       ing to raise any meaningful argument against it. Sapuppo v. Allstate
       Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 680 (11th Cir. 2014) (“When an ap-
       pellant fails to challenge properly on appeal one of the grounds on
       which the district court based its judgment, [s]he is deemed to have
       abandoned any challenge of that ground, and it follows that the
       judgment is due to be affirmed.”). The district court ruled that no
       reasonable jury could find that Height suffered an adverse
USCA11 Case: 23-12645      Document: 27-1       Date Filed: 02/21/2024      Page: 3 of 3

       23-12645                Opinion of the Court                           3

       employment action due to her disabilities and rejected her argu-
       ment that the Department failed to provide her with reasonable
       accommodations. The district court also ruled that Height’s claim
       of retaliation and a hostile work environment lacked support in the
       record.
               Height challenges none of these rulings. Instead, for the first
       time on appeal, Height argues that the Department’s “subordinate
       employees” lacked the authority to issue executive decisions, in-
       cluding decisions about her employment, on behalf of the Secre-
       tary. See Access Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1331 (11th
       Cir. 2004) (“[A]n issue not raised in the district court and raised for
       the first time in an appeal will not be considered by this court.”).
       Height’s brief contains no citation to the record or to any legal au-
       thority regarding her claims for relief, nor does her one-page argu-
       ment provide any explanation of how the district court might have
       erred. See Sapuppo, 739 F.3d at 680; Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A). Be-
       cause Height has forfeited any challenge to any ground for the
       judgment of the district court, there is no substantial question as to
       the outcome of the case. The Department’s 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 and
       AFFIRM the judgment in favor of the Department.