Jazzmon Edmundson v. The City of Atlanta as a Municipality ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •               Case: 17-13200     Date Filed: 04/06/2018   Page: 1 of 4
    [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    ________________________
    No. 17-13200
    Non-Argument Calendar
    ________________________
    D.C. Docket No. 1:16-cv-04639-LMM
    JAZZMON EDMUNDSON,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    versus
    THE CITY OF ATLANTA AS A MUNICIPALITY,
    bound by & through Chief George Turner in both individual and official capacity,
    OFFICER JUSTIN LOCKE,
    in his official Atlanta Police capacity and personal capacity,
    DEMETRIUS JONES,
    in both individual and official capacity,
    SGT. ROBERT DANIELS,
    in both individual and official capacity as an Atlanta Police Officer,
    SGT. ANDREW CERUL,
    in his individual and official capacity as an Atlanta Police Officer, et al.,
    Defendants-Appellees,
    CHIEF ERIKA SHIELDS,
    in her official capacity and personal capacity,
    Defendant.
    Case: 17-13200      Date Filed: 04/06/2018    Page: 2 of 4
    ________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Georgia
    ________________________
    (April 6, 2018)
    Before TJOFLAT, JULIE CARNES and HULL, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    Jazzmon Edmundson appeals the District Court’s dismissal of her complaint,
    filed pursuant to 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
    , alleging constitutional and state law violations
    related to her termination from the police force. On appeal, she argues that the
    District Court erred in dismissing her complaint for failure to state a claim upon
    which relief could be granted, because the complaint was well pled and contained
    sufficient allegations to state a plausible entitlement for relief.
    We review de novo a district court’s order granting a motion to dismiss for
    failure to state a claim, accepting all allegations in the complaint as true and
    construing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Hunt v. Aimco Props.,
    L.P., 
    814 F.3d 1213
    , 1221 (11th Cir. 2016). In order to survive a motion to
    dismiss, the complaint must plead enough facts to state a claim for relief that is
    plausible on its face. 
    Id.
     A claim is facially plausible when the plaintiff pleads
    factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
    defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. 
    Id.
    2
    Case: 17-13200     Date Filed: 04/06/2018    Page: 3 of 4
    An appellant abandons a claim when she either makes only passing
    references to it or raises it in a perfunctory manner without supporting arguments
    and authority. Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 
    739 F.3d 678
    , 681 (11th Cir.
    2014). Specifically, a passing reference to the claim made in the “summary of the
    argument” section of the opening brief or references “buried” within the
    appellant’s main arguments can constitute abandonment. 
    Id.
     at 681–82; see also
    Denney v. City of Albany, 
    247 F.3d 1172
    , 1182 (11th Cir. 2001) (deeming issue
    abandoned where plaintiffs made single reference to the issue in their brief, did not
    discuss the district court’s analysis of the issue, and did not make any legal or
    factual argument as to why district court’s decision was in error).
    Here, the substantive argument section of Edmundson’s brief is
    approximately two pages long and makes only the general assertion that her
    complaint was well plead and contained sufficient factual allegations. Edmundson
    does not address her specific causes of action, nor does she attempt to argue that
    her complaint alleged sufficient facts to establish the necessary elements of each.
    Though she makes some references to her Fourteenth Amendment and state law
    claims in the “Statement of Issues” and “Summary of Argument” sections of her
    brief, she does not dispute any of the specific conclusions the District Court
    reached regarding why any of her claims were deficient. Accordingly, because
    Edmundson made only passing references to some claims and did not mention
    3
    Case: 17-13200     Date Filed: 04/06/2018   Page: 4 of 4
    others at all, and did not develop any specific substantive legal arguments
    regarding her assertion that her complaint was sufficient, we conclude that she
    waived all of her claims of error on appeal. We affirm the District Court’s
    dismissal of her complaint.
    AFFIRMED.
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 17-13200

Filed Date: 4/6/2018

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021