Mark Handy v. Tina Cook

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-14556
MAY 11, 2012
Non-Argument Calendar
JOHN LEY
________________________ CLERK
D.C. Docket No. 5:10-cv-00271-MTT
MARK HANDY,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Counter
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellant,
versus
TINA COOK,
COOPER COOK,
lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendants-Counter
lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Claimants-Appellees,
KENNETH CHAPMAN,
MIKE BURNS,
CITY OF MACON,
JOHN DOES,
1 through 10,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendants-Appellees.
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia
________________________
(May 11, 2012)
Before TJOFLAT, EDMONDSON and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Mark Handy, proceeding pro se in his suit alleging civil rights and state law
violations, appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the
City of Macon, Mike Burns, Kenneth Chapman, Tina Cook, and Cooper Cook, as
well as the district court’s denial of his motion for default judgment and sanctions.
We review de novo a grant of summary judgment, Holloman v. Mail-Well
Corp., 443 F.3d 832, 836 (11th Cir. 2006), and review for abuse of discretion a
denial of a motion for default judgment, Mitchell v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco
Corp., 294 F.3d 1309, 1316 (11th Cir. 2002). “While we read briefs filed by pro
se litigants liberally, issues not briefed on appeal by a pro se litigant are deemed
abandoned.” Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008) (internal
citations omitted). Here, the “Statement of Issues” section of Handy’s brief lists a
number of general issues stated in question form, but Handy does not offer any
2
corresponding argument, much less any meritorious argument, on appeal.1 We
find that Handy has abandoned these issues on appeal and affirm the district court.
AFFIRMED.
1
The brief states, for example, “Did the District Court cite the correct cases to support
their ruling” and “Did the District Court consider Title 18 U.S.C. Section 241, Conspiracy
Against Rights in making their [sic] ruling.” Following the “Statement of Issues,” the brief
discusses an immaterial transcript page-numbering issue and proceeds directly to a broad
“Conclusion,” omitting any meaningful argument regarding the issues on appeal.
3