Thomas K. Bush v. United States District Court, Northern District of Georgia ( 2012 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 11-10054 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JULY 5, 2012
Non-Argument Calendar
JOHN LEY
________________________
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 1:10-cv-01423-ODE
THOMAS K. BUSH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT,
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA,
ATLANTA DIVISION
ALL U.S. DISTRICT COURT IN THE UNITED STATES,
and its territories, et al.
Defendants-Appellees.
_________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
_________________________________________
(July 5, 2012)
Before EDMONDSON, HULL and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Thomas Bush, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s sua sponte
dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous: pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2). No reversible error has been shown; we affirm.
Bush filed a section 1983 complaint against all federal and State of Georgia
judges, all federal district and appellate courts, the United States Supreme Court,
the judicial branches of both the United States and the State of Georgia, and the
State of Georgia. He contended that defendants failed to protect him from the
executive and legislative branches’ alleged constitutional violations. The
magistrate judge --concluding that Bush’s “rambling, nonsensical, and conclusory
allegations lack[ed] an arguable basis either in law or in fact” -- recommended that
the complaint be dismissed without prejudice as frivolous under section
1915(e)(2). The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation and
dismissed the complaint.
In his two-page appellate brief, Bush argues that defendants “have failed to
observe and follow the Constitution of the United States as written, and in doing
so, have violated [his] 14th Amendment, Equal Protection Rights.” Bush makes
no specific argument in support of his claim. Instead, he merely sets forth a
hypothetical traffic court case that is unrelated to his original complaint. “While
we read 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
2
(11th Cir. 2008) (citations omitted). Because Bush failed to raise adequately
issues that were before the district court, he has abandoned all issues on appeal.*
AFFIRMED.
*
Even if Bush had not abandoned his arguments on appeal, we agree that Bush’s
complaint lacked “arguable merit either in law or fact.” See Bilal v. Driver, 251 F.3d 1346, 1349
(11th Cir. 2001). Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Bush’s
complaint as frivolous. See id.3