Court Opinion

ID: 9901142
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-21 15:00:41.098974+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:27.087755
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-14241    Document: 22-1      Date Filed: 11/21/2023   Page: 1 of 11

                                                    [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                           ____________________

                                 No. 22-14241
                           Non-Argument Calendar
                           ____________________

        NATHAN LEON ROBERTS,
        Sui Juris
                                                       Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
        versus
        FREEDOM MORTGAGE CORPORATION,

                                                     Defendant-Appellee.

                           ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of Georgia
                     D.C. Docket No. 2:21-cv-00232-RWS
USCA11 Case: 22-14241      Document: 22-1     Date Filed: 11/21/2023     Page: 2 of 11

        2                      Opinion of the Court                22-14241

                             ____________________

        Before WILSON, LUCK, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges.
        PER CURIAM:
               Nathan Roberts, pro se, appeals the district court’s order
        adopting the recommendation of a magistrate judge and dismissing
        his amended civil complaint against Freedom Mortgage Corpora-
        tion (“Freedom Mortgage”) with prejudice for failure to state a
        claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). On appeal, Roberts makes no
        argument in his appellate brief as to the substantive grounds for the
        dismissal of his complaint. Rather, he raises the same arguments
        that he presented in his objections to the magistrate judge’s report
        and recommendation (“R&R”), arguing that the magistrate judge
        acted without legal authority in his case, and that Freedom Mort-
        gage’s counsel acted without authority and engaged in the unau-
        thorized practice of law. After review, we affirm.
            I.    FACTUAL        BACKGROUND           &    PROCEDURAL
                  HISTORY
                In September 2021, Roberts ﬁled a pro se civil complaint
        against Freedom Mortgage in Georgia state court, which Freedom
        Mortgage removed to federal court. In his initial complaint, Rob-
        erts alleged that Freedom Mortgage was not a valid debt collector
        or creditor over his residential property and that Freedom Mort-
        gage had violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
        (“FDCPA”).
USCA11 Case: 22-14241      Document: 22-1      Date Filed: 11/21/2023     Page: 3 of 11

        22-14241               Opinion of the Court                         3

               Freedom Mortgage, through counsel Matthew T. Covell,
        moved to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), contending
        that Roberts failed to state a claim upon which relief could be
        granted. In response, Roberts moved the district court to “deny
        Matthew T. Covell’s motion to dismiss,” arguing that Freedom
        Mortgage’s attorney’s legal arguments were insuﬃcient to support
        its motion to dismiss. Freedom Mortgage replied and argued that
        it was not relying on any statements of counsel, but rather on the
        alleged facts, as pled in Roberts’s complaint and the applicable laws.
               Roberts then moved the district court to take judicial notice
        of Covell as an “impersonator” because Covell was ﬁling docu-
        ments on Freedom Mortgage’s behalf that were solely authored by
        Covell and did not contain information that could be substantiated
        by ﬁrsthand knowledge. Roberts also moved to disqualify Covell
        as Freedom Mortgage’s counsel. In this motion, he argued that he
        had given Covell 14 days to rebut his allegations that Covell was an
        “impersonator,” and his failure to do so resulted in a tacit admission
        of the acts alleged.
               In August 2022, the magistrate judge entered a R&R deny-
        ing Roberts’s motion to disqualify and recommending that Free-
        dom Mortgage’s motion to dismiss be granted and that Roberts’s
        complaint should be dismissed with leave to amend. As to Rob-
        erts’s motion to disqualify Covell, the magistrate judge found that
        such motion was not supported by law or fact and denied the mo-
        tion.
USCA11 Case: 22-14241      Document: 22-1      Date Filed: 11/21/2023      Page: 4 of 11

        4                      Opinion of the Court                  22-14241

                As to the motion to dismiss, the magistrate judge recom-
        mended that the motion be granted. However, the magistrate
        judge determined that, in consideration of Roberts’s pro se status,
        it was appropriate to allow Roberts the opportunity to amend. The
        magistrate judge cautioned Roberts that, in his amended com-
        plaint, he should allege each of his separate causes of action in sep-
        arately numbered counts, each of which should assert a single
        claim for relief, and that each count should clearly set forth the spe-
        ciﬁc facts underlying each claim and explain the basis for each cause
        of action.
              Before the district court could issue a ﬁnal order regarding
        the August 2022 R&R, Roberts ﬁled an amended complaint against
        Freedom Mortgage. In Counts 1 through 4 and Counts 6 through
        7, Roberts made varying arguments asserting that Freedom Mort-
        gage did not have standing to require him to pay his debts. Then,
        in Count 5, Roberts alleged that Freedom Mortgage violated the
        FDCPA by creating and furnishing “deceptive forms” showing that
        he owed them a debt.
                Freedom Mortgage again moved to dismiss the amended
        complaint under Rule 12(b)(6). In the motion, it argued that Rob-
        erts’s complaint should be dismissed with prejudice because the
        amended complaint still failed to set forth speciﬁc supported facts
        underlying each claim and failed to explain the basis for each cause
        of action.
              On August 29, 2022, the district court approved and adopted
        the August 2022 R&R, granting Freedom Mortgage’s ﬁrst motion
USCA11 Case: 22-14241      Document: 22-1     Date Filed: 11/21/2023     Page: 5 of 11

        22-14241               Opinion of the Court                        5

        to dismiss and dismissing Roberts’s original complaint. The district
        court further stated that Roberts’s amended complaint, as contem-
        plated by the magistrate judge’s August 2022 R&R, was proper and
        accepted by the court, notwithstanding its ﬁling prior to the court’s
        decision to adopt the R&R, and was the operative pleading moving
        forward. The order noted that all pretrial proceedings would re-
        main before the magistrate judge.
               Thereafter, Roberts moved in opposition to Freedom Mort-
        gage’s motion to dismiss his amended complaint. He contended
        that he adequately stated claims upon which relief could be
        granted for each of his counts. He also argued that his amended
        complaint should not be dismissed with prejudice due to his pro se
        status and because he set forth speciﬁc supporting facts for each
        count that established the grounds for each count.
               Then, between September and October 2022, Roberts ﬁled
        seven motions attempting to disqualify Covell as Freedom Mort-
        gage’s attorney. Although diﬃcult to decipher, in these motions,
        he made a variety of arguments centering on his belief that Covell
        could not transact business in the state of Georgia or represent
        Freedom Mortgage and that he was not registered with the state
        bar. The magistrate judge denied the ﬁrst motion in this series of
        motions, concluding that it was frivolous because Covell was an
        active member in good standing with the State Bar of Georgia, was
        admitted to the district court’s bar, and was authorized to ﬁle doc-
        uments in the current case.
USCA11 Case: 22-14241      Document: 22-1     Date Filed: 11/21/2023     Page: 6 of 11

        6                      Opinion of the Court                22-14241

                Then, in November 2022, the magistrate judge issued an
        R&R addressing Roberts’s amended complaint. The magistrate
        judge ﬁrst denied Roberts’s six pending motions challenging Cov-
        ell’s representation of Freedom Mortgage as factually and legally
        meritless, reiterating its prior ﬁndings on the matter. Then, as to
        Freedom Mortgage’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint,
        the magistrate judge recommended that the motion be granted be-
        cause Roberts failed to state a claim upon relief could be granted
        on all counts. The magistrate judge also recommended that the
        amended complaint be denied with prejudice, ﬁnding that Roberts
        had been given a chance to amend the complaint with the beneﬁt
        of instructions from the court on how to properly plead his case,
        yet failed to do so, and that nothing in the amended complaint sug-
        gested that giving Roberts another opportunity to amend would
        yield viable claims.
               The magistrate judge then ordered service of the R&R
        which instructed the parties that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1),
        each party had fourteen days to ﬁle written objections, and that if
        no objections were ﬁled, the R&R could be adopted as the opinion
        and order of the district court. The magistrate judge also warned
        that, should no objections be made, this Court, on appeal, would
        deem waived any challenge to factual and legal ﬁndings, subject to
        interests of justice plain error review.
               Roberts ﬁled two sets of objections to the November 2022
        R&R. In his ﬁrst set of objections, he did not address the magis-
        trate judge’s ﬁndings regarding the dismissal of his amended
USCA11 Case: 22-14241       Document: 22-1      Date Filed: 11/21/2023      Page: 7 of 11

        22-14241                Opinion of the Court                          7

        complaint. Instead, he challenged the magistrate judge’s denial of
        his motions to disqualify Covell. He also argued that the magis-
        trate judge acted without authority and challenged the magistrate
        judge’s ability to “transact business” in the state of Georgia. In his
        second set of objections, Roberts reiterated his arguments about
        the magistrate judge and Covell. Roberts also ﬁled a motion de-
        clining the magistrate judge’s jurisdiction and requesting that the
        case be immediately assigned to a district court judge. He also
        stated that he never received notice of the assignment of his case
        to a magistrate judge, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 73(b)(1). Rob-
        erts reiterated these arguments in another ﬁling.
                Ultimately, the district court adopted and aﬃrmed the No-
        vember 2022 R&R. In its order, the court addressed Roberts’s ob-
        jections and other ﬁlings, ﬁnding that, construed liberally, they
        were subject to summary dismissal due to their frivolity. As to Rob-
        erts’s other ﬁlings, the court found that they lacked any basis in law
        or fact. Thus, the court overruled Roberts’s objections, granted
        Freedom Mortgage’s motion to dismiss, and dismissed Roberts’s
        complaint with prejudice. Roberts’s appeal followed.
           II.     ANALYSIS
                We hold pro se pleadings to a less stringent standard and lib-
        erally construe them. Campbell v. Air Jam., Ltd., 760 F.3d 1165, 1168
        (11th Cir. 2014). Nevertheless, courts should not serve as a pro se
        party’s counsel or rewrite a deﬁcient pleading to sustain an action.
        Id. at 1168-69. Pro se litigants must comply with the applicable pro-
        cedural rules. Albra v. Advan, Inc., 490 F.3d 826, 829 (11th Cir. 2007).
USCA11 Case: 22-14241       Document: 22-1      Date Filed: 11/21/2023      Page: 8 of 11

        8                       Opinion of the Court                  22-14241

        Additionally, a pro se party abandons an issue by failing to challenge
        it on appeal. Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008).
        A party abandons a claim when he presents his argument in “pass-
        ing references” or “in a perfunctory manner without supporting
        arguments and authority.” Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739
        F.3d 678, 681 (11th Cir. 2014). “[S]imply stating that an issue exists,”
        without providing reasoning and citation to authority that the ap-
        pellant relies on, “constitutes abandonment of that issue.” Singh v.
        U.S. Att’y Gen., 561 F.3d 1275, 1278 (11th Cir. 2009).
                Under § 636(b)(1)(A), a district court may designate a magis-
        trate judge to hear and determine any pretrial matter, except a dis-
        positive motion. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Further, a district court
        may designate a magistrate judge to make a recommendation for
        the disposition of a case. Id. § 636(b)(1)(B). A magistrate judge also
        “may conduct any or all proceedings in a jury or nonjury civil mat-
        ter and order the entry of judgment in the case” upon consent of
        the parties. Id. § 636(c)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 73(a) (explaining
        that a magistrate judge may conduct civil actions or proceedings,
        including a trial, if all parties consent in the manner outlined by the
        Rule). The U.S. Supreme Court has explained that, while a magis-
        trate judge is not an Article III judge, “a district court may refer
        dispositive motions to a magistrate for a recommendation so long
        as ‘the entire process takes place under the district court’s total con-
        trol and jurisdiction,’ and the judge ‘exercise[s] the ultimate author-
        ity to issue an appropriate order.’” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 153
        (1985) (brackets in original) (quoting United States v. Raddatz, 447
        U.S. 667, 681-82 (1980)).
USCA11 Case: 22-14241      Document: 22-1      Date Filed: 11/21/2023      Page: 9 of 11

        22-14241               Opinion of the Court                          9

               Importantly, a party who fails to object to a magistrate
        judge’s ﬁndings or recommendations contained in a R&R “waives
        the right to challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on
        unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions if the party was in-
        formed of the time period for objecting and the consequences on
        appeal for failing to object.” 11th Cir. R. 3-1. However, we still may
        review an unobjected-to issue on appeal “for plain error if neces-
        sary in the interests of justice.” Id.
                “Rule 3-1 bars an appeal only when the party who failed to
        object was informed of the time period for objecting and the con-
        sequences on appeal for failing to do so.” Harrigan v. Metro Dade
        Police Dep’t Station #4, 977 F.3d 1181, 1191 (11th Cir. 2020) (empha-
        sis in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Evans v.
        Ga. Reg'l Hosp., 850 F.3d 1248, 1257 (11th Cir. 2017), abrogated on
        other grounds by Bostock v. Clayton Cnty., 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020)). If
        we determine that the interests of justice necessitate us to review
        an unobjected-to error in a R&R, we will then “apply the height-
        ened civil plain error standard.” Roy v. Ivy, 53 F.4th 1338, 1351 (11th
        Cir. 2022). Under such standard, “we will consider an issue not
        raised in the district court if it involves a pure question of law, and
        if refusal to consider it would result in a miscarriage of justice.”
        Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Burch v. P.J. Cheese,
        Inc., 861 F.3d 1338, 1352 (11th Cir. 2017)).
               On appeal, Roberts makes no arguments challenging the ac-
        tual dismissal of his amended complaint. As a result, he has waived
        and abandoned any challenge to the dismissal. See 11th Cir. R. 3-1;
USCA11 Case: 22-14241     Document: 22-1      Date Filed: 11/21/2023    Page: 10 of 11

        10                     Opinion of the Court                22-14241

        Harrigan, 977 F.3d at 1191; Timson, 518 F.3d at 874. He failed to
        object to the November 2022 R&R’s ﬁndings related to the merits
        of Counts 1 through 7, and he failed to make any appellate argu-
        ments on based on the same. Moreover, there is no indication that
        the interests of justice would be served upon this Court conducting
        a plain error review of the dismissal. Roy, 53 F.4th at 1351. Thus,
        we decline to review the district court’s decision to dismiss Rob-
        erts’s amended complaint with prejudice.
               Instead, on appeal Roberts continues to challenge the mag-
        istrate judge’s authority to rule on non-dispositive motions and
        Freedom Mortgage’s counsel’s ability to practice law in the state of
        Georgia on the company’s behalf. Because he raised these issues in
        his objections to the November 2022 R&R and in his brief, the ar-
        guments are properly before us. Nevertheless, his contentions are
        meritless. To Roberts’s challenges against the magistrate judge’s
        authority, the magistrate judge appropriately ruled on non-dispos-
        itive motions and made a recommendation on Freedom Mort-
        gage’s motion to dismiss in accordance with § 636(b). While Rob-
        erts challenges the fact that he did not consent to the magistrate
        judge under Rule 73, such consent was not necessary in this in-
        stance, because the magistrate judge was not ruling on dispositive
        motions or resolving the case in its entirety. Moreover, the district
        court always retained jurisdiction and control over the case and its
        ultimate authority to issue an appropriate order resolving the case.
        Thomas, 474 U.S. at 153. Finally, Roberts challenges to Covell’s
        work on the case are frivolous, for Covell is a member of good
USCA11 Case: 22-14241     Document: 22-1      Date Filed: 11/21/2023     Page: 11 of 11

        22-14241               Opinion of the Court                        11

        standing with the State Bar of Georgia and is authorized to practice
        law before the district court and this Court on behalf of his clients.
           III.    CONCLUSION
               For the reasons set forth herein, we AFFIRM the district
        court’s dismissal with prejudice of Roberts’s amended complaint.