Rosslon Jowers v. William W. Wynne, Jr. , 551 F. App'x 525 ( 2014 )

Case: 13-10967 Date Filed: 01/06/2014 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-10967
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:12-cv-00423-MHT-SRW
ROSSLON JOWERS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
STATE OF ALABAMA,
Defendant,
WILLIAM W. WYNNE, JR.,
ALABAMA BOARD OF PARDONS AND PAROLES,
CLIFF WALKER,
ROBERT P. LONGSHORE,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Alabama
________________________
(January 6, 2014)
Case: 13-10967 Date Filed: 01/06/2014 Page: 2 of 4
Before TJOFLAT, JORDAN and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Rosslon Jowers, proceeding pro se, appeals the dismissal of her employment
discrimination claims against the Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles, and three
of its employees (collectively, the Parole Board). Following an evidentiary
hearing, the district court entered an order enforcing the terms of a written
settlement agreement reached before a federal magistrate judge. Because the
settlement agreement included a requirement that Jowers’ lawsuit be dismissed, the
district court dismissed her employment discrimination claims. On appeal, Jowers
argues the district court erred in enforcing the settlement agreement and dismissing
her claims because she did not consent to the agreement, but was coerced by her
attorney to sign it against her will. 1
We review the district court’s decision to enforce a settlement agreement for
an abuse of discretion. Resnick v. Uccello Immobilien GMBH, Inc., 227 F.3d
1347, 1350 (11th Cir. 2000). A district court’s findings of fact are reviewed for
clear error. Wexler v. Anderson, 452 F.3d 1226, 1230 (11th Cir. 2006). We may
1
Jowers also raises legal malpractice and due process claims for the first time on appeal.
Because she failed to raise these claims before the district court, and none of the exceptions to
the rule barring appellate review of newly raised issues apply, we decline to consider these
claims. See Narey v. Dean, 32 F.3d 1521, 1526-27 (11th Cir. 1994). Moreover, we need not
consider whether her attorney had actual or apparent authority to settle for her because Jowers
was present for the mediation and personally executed the settlement agreement.
2
Case: 13-10967 Date Filed: 01/06/2014 Page: 3 of 4
affirm on any basis that finds support in the record. Lucas v. W.W. Grainger, Inc.,
257 F.3d 1249, 1256 (11th Cir. 2001).
The enforcement of a settlement agreement is governed by contract law of
the forum state. Hayes v. Nat’l Serv. Indus., 196 F.3d 1252, 1254 (11th Cir. 1999).
A validly executed, written settlement agreement is binding on the parties and will
not be set aside, absent proof of “fraud, collusion, accident, surprise or some
ground of [similar] nature.” Brocato v. Brocato, 332 So. 2d 722, 724 (Ala. 1976)
(quotation omitted).
Jowers was present for the mediation, and personally signed the settlement
agreement, which was in writing. These facts are sufficient to bind the parties
absent coercion or other similar grounds. Brocato, 332 So. 2d at 724. Although
Jowers claims she was coerced into signing the agreement, the record supports the
district court’s finding that she voluntarily, albeit “begrudgingly,” executed the
agreement. Her attorney testified he informed her that she did not have to sign
anything. He also testified, as did a representative from the Parole Board who
attended the mediation conference, that the magistrate judge informed Jowers that
mediation was voluntary. Further, Jowers testified she settled, in part, because she
was worried she would be liable for discovery costs, which undermines her
assertion that she consented because of coercion. In light of the court’s valid
finding that Jowers voluntarily consented to the agreement, the fact that she was
3
Case: 13-10967 Date Filed: 01/06/2014 Page: 4 of 4
unhappy about doing so is insufficient to set the agreement aside. The district
court did not abuse its discretion in enforcing the settlement agreement and
dismissing Jowers’ employment discrimination claims.
AFFIRMED.
4