Case: 14-12298 Date Filed: 01/06/2015 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-12298
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cv-01776-CAP
BARBARA J. LATTIMORE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
BANK OF AMERICA HOME LOANS,
Defendant,
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(January 6, 2015)
Case: 14-12298 Date Filed: 01/06/2015 Page: 2 of 3
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JORDAN, and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Barbara Lattimore, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s order
denying her post-judgment motions for reconsideration in her suit against Bank of
America, N.A. for claims related to a foreclosure on her home mortgage. The
district court, in a single order, denied both motions as untimely, and alternatively,
on the merits.
On appeal, Ms. Lattimore does not contest the district court’s finding that
her post-judgment motions were untimely, nor does she dispute the district court’s
conclusion that her motions for reconsideration failed on the merits. While 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) (citations omitted). By failing to address the district court’s
rulings in her initial brief, Ms. Lattimore has abandoned any challenge to them on
appeal. 1
Rather than address the district court’s bases for denying her motions, Ms.
Latimore makes numerous arguments regarding the merits of her underlying case
and raises new claims against Bank of America. We have held that “except when
1
Ms. Lattimore did not file a reply brief.
2
Case: 14-12298 Date Filed: 01/06/2015 Page: 3 of 3
we invoke the ‘plain error doctrine,’ which rarely applies in civil cases, we do not
consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal.” Ledford v. Peeples,
657
F.3d 1222, 1258 (11th Cir. 2011). Accordingly, we decline to address the issues
Ms. Lattimore raises in her initial brief.
AFFIRMED.
3
