Case: 17-13420 Date Filed: 08/09/2018 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 17-13420
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:17-cv-00626-MHC
ANNA FEY,
TONY FEY,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
US BANK, N.A.,
as Trustee,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(August 9, 2018)
Before JORDAN, BRANCH and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 17-13420 Date Filed: 08/09/2018 Page: 2 of 4
Anna and Tony Fey, proceeding pro se, appeal the district court’s dismissal
of their wrongful foreclosure action for failure to state a claim, as well as the
district court’s denial of leave to amend their complaint. After review,1 we affirm.
I. DISCUSSION
A. Dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
It is well-settled that a legal claim or argument that has not been briefed on
appeal is “deemed abandoned and its merits will not be addressed.” Access Now,
Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co.,
385 F.3d 1324, 1330 (11th Cir. 2004). Although we
construe briefs filed by pro se litigants liberally, “issues not briefed on appeal by a
pro se litigant are deemed abandoned.” Timson v. Sampson,
518 F.3d 870, 874
(11th Cir. 2008). Even when construed liberally, the Feys’ briefing does not
challenge the district court’s dismissal of their complaint under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Instead of identifying any specific defects in the district
court’s legal reasoning, the Feys reassert the factual allegations presented to the
district court in support of their claims alongside some novel factual allegations
and contend that the case should be remanded to the district court for further
development of the record. By failing to raise any legal argument challenging the
1
We review the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim de novo,
accepting the allegations in the complaint as true and construing them in the light most favorable
to the plaintiff. McGinley v. Houston,
361 F.3d 1328, 1330 (11th Cir. 2004). We generally
review the denial of a motion to amend a complaint for abuse of discretion, but we review
questions of law de novo. Williams v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. Sys. of Georgia,
477 F.3d 1282,
1291 (11th Cir. 2007).
2
Case: 17-13420 Date Filed: 08/09/2018 Page: 3 of 4
district court’s dismissal of their complaint, the Feys abandoned the argument on
appeal. Access Now,
Inc., 385 F.3d at 1330. Accordingly, we affirm the district
court’s dismissal of the Feys’ complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).2
B. Denial of Leave to Amend
“Filing a motion is the proper method to request leave to amend a
complaint.” Long v. Satz,
181 F.3d 1275, 1279 (11th Cir. 1999) (citing Fed. R.
Civ. P. 7(b)(1)). A motion for leave to amend must either set forth the substance of
the proposed amendment, or, alternatively, the movant must attach a copy of the
proposed amendment to their motion.
Id. In Long, the appellant did not file a
motion for leave to amend, but requested leave to amend in a memorandum she
filed in opposition to the defendant’s motion to dismiss.
Id. On appeal, a panel of
this Court concluded the appellant was precluded from arguing that the district
court abused its discretion by denying her leave to amend the complaint because
she had ample time to file a proper motion but failed to do so.
Id.
Here, the Feys did not file a proper motion for leave to amend. Instead, the
Feys requested leave to amend in their objections to the magistrate judge’s report
2
We note that even had the Feys raised a legal argument challenging the district court’s
dismissal of their complaint, it would fail because, pursuant to 11th Cir. R. 3-1, a party who fails
to object to a magistrate judge’s findings or recommendations “waives the right to challenge on
appeal the district court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions,” provided
the party was given proper notice of the objection time period and the consequences of failing to
object.
3
Case: 17-13420 Date Filed: 08/09/2018 Page: 4 of 4
and recommendations. Furthermore, the Feys failed to specifically identify the
substance of the proposed amendment or to attach a copy of the proposed
amendment to their objections. “Failure to properly request leave to amend, when
[the Feys] had adequate opportunity and time to do so, precludes [their] argument
on appeal that the district court abused its discretion by denying [them] leave to
amend [their] complaint.”
Long, 181 F.3d at 1279-80.
II. CONCLUSION
Because the Feys abandoned the argument that the district court erred by
dismissing their complaint for failure to state a claim and failed to properly request
leave to amend their complaint, the district court’s decision is AFFIRMED.
4
