USCA11 Case: 22-10248 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 06/12/2023 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-10248
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
MONICA TAYLOR,
a.k.a. Stormy M,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,
Defendant-Appellee.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Alabama
D.C. Docket No. 1:20-cv-00583-CG-N
USCA11 Case: 22-10248 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 06/12/2023 Page: 2 of 4
2 Opinion of the Court 22-10248
____________________
Before JILL PRYOR, LAGOA, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Monica Taylor appeals the district court’s grant of summary
judgment to United States Department of the Treasury (“the De-
partment”) because she failed to file her employment discrimina-
tion complaint within 90 days of receiving the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission’s (“EEOC”) final decision. On appeal,
Taylor argues that we should overturn the district court’s decision
and rule in her favor, and she reiterates the substantive claims she
made in her complaint that she suffered discrimination based on
her race, age, and disability. The Department responds by moving
for summary affirmance of the district court’s judgment, and it ar-
gues that Taylor does not argue in her initial brief that she filed her
district court complaint within 90 days of receiving the EEOC’s fi-
nal decision, and so she has abandoned any timeliness argument
and the district court’s judgment is due to be affirmed. Alterna-
tively, the Department argues that the district court’s judgment
was indisputably correct as a matter of law because Taylor did not
meet the procedural requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–5(f)(1) and
did not meet the 90-day filing requirement.
Summary disposition is appropriate either where time is of
the essence, such as “situations where important public policy is-
sues are involved or those where rights delayed are rights denied,”
or where “the position of one of the parties is clearly right as a
USCA11 Case: 22-10248 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 06/12/2023 Page: 3 of 4
22-10248 Opinion of the Court 3
matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the
outcome of the case, or where, as is more frequently the case, the
appeal is frivolous.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis,
406 F.2d 1158,
1161-62 (5th Cir. 1969).
We review de novo a lower court’s grant of summary judg-
ment, using the same legal standards applied by the lower court.
Alvarez v. Royal Atl. Developers, Inc.,
610 F.3d 1253, 1263 (11th Cir.
2010). Summary judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows that
there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). In
determining whether the movant has met this burden, courts must
view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant.
Alvarez,
610 F.3d at 1263–64.
Issues not briefed on appeal are deemed forfeited and will
not be addressed absent extraordinary circumstances. United States
v. Campbell,
26 F.4th 860, 871–72 (11th Cir. 2022) (en banc), cert. de-
nied,
143 S. Ct. 95 (2022). Additionally, to reverse a district court
order that is based on multiple, independent grounds, a party must
convince us that every stated ground for the judgment against her
is incorrect. Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co.,
739 F.3d 678, 680
(11th Cir. 2014). When an appellant fails to challenge properly on
appeal one of the grounds on which the district court based its judg-
ment, she is deemed to have abandoned any challenge of that
ground, and it follows that the judgment is due to be affirmed.
Id.
Issues must be raised plainly and prominently on appeal. See
id. at
680–81.
USCA11 Case: 22-10248 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 06/12/2023 Page: 4 of 4
4 Opinion of the Court 22-10248
We conclude that summary affirmance is warranted here
because Taylor made no argument in her brief concerning the basis
of the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the De-
partment—the timeliness of her complaint after receiving the
EEOC’s final decision. Accordingly, she forfeited any argument re-
garding the timeliness of her complaint, and the Department is cor-
rect as a matter of law that the district court’s judgment adopting
the report and recommendation and granting summary judgment
to the Department is due to be affirmed. Campbell, 26 F.4th at
871–72; Sapuppo,
739 F.3d at 680.
Accordingly, because the government’s position is correct as
a matter of law, we GRANT the Department’s motion for sum-
mary affirmance. Groendyke Transp., Inc.,
406 F.2d at 1162.
AFFIRMED.
