Luis E. Ramos v. Cks Packaging, Inc ( 2011 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-12617 DECEMBER 13, 2011
Argument Calendar JOHN LEY
________________________ CLERK
D.C. Docket No. 1:10-cv-00853-CAP
LUIS E. RAMOS,
Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellant,
versus
CKS PACKAGING, INC.,
JEFF ELBON,
DREW SEWELL,
Defendants-Counter Claimants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(December 13, 2011)
Before BARKETT, HULL and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Luis Ramos, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s order overruling
his objections to the settlement of his age and disability employment action
brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12112(a) and
12203(a) (“ADA”), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C.
§ 623(a)(1) and (d) (“ADEA”), and the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 216(“FLSA”). Before the district court, Ramos argued that he was entitled to revoke
the settlement of his employment action because, under the Older Workers Benefit
Protection Act of 1990 (“OWBPA”), he had a seven-day window to revoke the
agreement from the time of its execution. On appeal, Ramos argues instead that
his decision to settle the employment action was the result of the undue influence
and economic duress of his prior counsel. Ramos does not raise an argument in
his initial appellate brief regarding any right to revoke the agreement under the
OWBPA.
CKS Packaging, Inc., Jeff Elbon, and Drew Sewell (collectively, “CKS”),
argue that the district court did not err in overruling Ramos’s objections because,
inter alia, Ramos waived the argument he raises on appeal by failing to raise it
before the district court. CKS has also moved for sanctions against Ramos, which
will be addressed by separate order.
We review a district court’s decision to enforce a settlement agreement for
2
an abuse of discretion. Hayes v. Nat’l Serv. Indus., 196 F.3d 1252, 1254 (11th Cir.
1999). However, we will generally only review claims that have been raised
before the district court. Resolution Trust Corp. v. Dunmar Corp., 43 F.3d 587,
598-99 (11th Cir. 1995). In addition, although we will construe pro se briefs
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).
Because Ramos failed to raise in the district court, the claim he makes on
appeal, concerning the undue influence and economic duress of his prior counsel,
Ramos has waived that issue and we will not consider it on appeal. Resolution
Trust Corp., 43 F.3d at 598-99. Additionally, Ramos has also abandoned the
issues he raised in the district court by failing to raise them in his initial appellate
brief. See Timson, 518 F.3d at 874.
Accordingly, upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
3