Penelope Edwards-Conrad, MD v. Massachusets Mutual LIfe Insurance Company , 577 F. App'x 929 ( 2014 )

Case: 14-10199 Date Filed: 08/18/2014 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-10199
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 7:13-cv-00020-HL
PENELOPE EDWARDS-CONRAD, MD,
Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellant,
versus
MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia
________________________
(August 18, 2014)
Before HULL, MARCUS and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 14-10199 Date Filed: 08/18/2014 Page: 2 of 3
Penelope Edwards-Conrad, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s
dismissal of her civil complaint without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41(b) for failure to comply with a court order. After the district court
dismissed the complaint, appellee Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company
voluntarily dismissed its counterclaim without prejudice and the court entered a
final judgment dismissing the case.
Typically, “partial adjudication on the merits, followed by a voluntary
dismissal without prejudice of a pending claim, does not effectively terminate the
litigation and, therefore, does not satisfy the finality requirement of 28 U.S.C. §
1291.” CSX Transp., Inc. v. City of Garden City, 235 F.3d 1325, 1327 (11th Cir.
2000) (citing Ryan v. Occidental Petroleum Corp., 577 F.2d 298, 302–03 (5th Cir.
1978)1). However, the Ryan rule does not apply here because “there was no
attempt to manufacture [appellate] jurisdiction[,] . . . [and] the plaintiff/appellant
stands to lose all right to appeal if the rule of Ryan applies.” CSX Transp., Inc.,
235 F.3d at 1329. The circumstances we face warrant jurisdiction.
We review dismissals under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for abuse
of discretion. Gratton v. Great Am. Commc’ns, 178 F.3d 1373, 1374 (11th Cir.
1999) (per curiam). “While we read briefs filed by pro se litigants liberally, issues
1
In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), we
adopted as binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior
to the close of business on September 30, 1981.
2
Case: 14-10199 Date Filed: 08/18/2014 Page: 3 of 3
not briefed on appeal . . . are deemed abandoned.” Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d
870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (citation omitted). “A passing reference to
an issue in a brief is not enough, and the failure to make arguments and cite
authorities in support of an issue waives it.” Hamilton v. Southland Christian Sch.,
Inc., 680 F.3d 1316, 1319 (11th Cir. 2012). Additionally, we do not address
arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief. Timson, 518 F.3d at 874.
We conclude that Edwards-Conrad abandoned any challenge to the dismissal
of her complaint by failing to offer any legal argument or citation to authority in
her initial brief. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order and judgment.
AFFIRMED.
3