Mark Grissom v. John Merkle

USCA11 Case: 22-12007 Document: 22-1 Date Filed: 01/31/2023 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-12007
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
MARK GRISSOM,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JOHN MERKLE,
N WHITAKER,
TONY DAVIS,
LESLIE WIGGINS,
SCOTT ISSACS, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-12007 Document: 22-1 Date Filed: 01/31/2023 Page: 2 of 3
2 Opinion of the Court 22-12007
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
D.C. Docket No. 2:21-cv-01633-ACA
____________________
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, NEWSOM, and ANDERSON,
Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Mark Grissom appeals the dismissal of his pro se amended
complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Grissom complained that the de-
fendants violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organiza-
tions Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq., and various constitutional rights
stemming from his termination from a Veterans Affairs medical
center. The district court dismissed the complaint because the Civil
Service Reform Act of 1978, 5 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq., barred his chal-
lenge to an adverse employment action couched as racketeering
and constitutional violations. The defendants move for summary
affirmance and for a stay of the briefing schedule. Because “the po-
sition of [the defendants] . . . is clearly right as a matter of law so
that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the
case,” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th
Cir. 1969), we grant the motion for summary affirmance and deny
as moot the motion to stay the briefing schedule.
“When an appellant fails to challenge properly on appeal
one of the grounds on which the district court based its judgment,
he is deemed to have abandoned any challenge of that ground, and
USCA11 Case: 22-12007 Document: 22-1 Date Filed: 01/31/2023 Page: 3 of 3
22-12007 Opinion of the Court 3
it follows that the judgment is due to be affirmed.” Sapuppo v. All-
state Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 680 (11th Cir. 2014). For an
argument to be sufficiently briefed on appeal, the argument must
include the appellant’s “contentions and the reasons for them, with
citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which the
appellant relies.” Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A).
Summary affirmance is appropriate. Grissom has aban-
doned any objection to the dismissal of his amended complaint for
lack of jurisdiction by failing to raise any meaningful argument
against it. Even liberally construed, Grissom’s assertions that the
district court “impeded due process and equal access” and “effec-
tively denied [his] constitutional rights” by “recreating” his com-
plaint into something that it could dismiss are vague and conclu-
sory. The argument section of Grissom’s opening brief, which
spans only a few pages and provides a list of 13 conclusory state-
ments, contains no citations to authority or portions of the record
nor any explanation of why the district court erred. As a result,
there is no substantial question as to the outcome of the case, and
the defendants’ position that we must affirm is correct as a matter
of law. See Groendyke, 406 F.2d at 1162.
We GRANT the motion for summary affirmance, AFFIRM
the dismissal of Grissom’s amended complaint, and DENY AS
MOOT the motion to stay the briefing schedule.