Johnnie Demond Jackson v. Sheriff Kevin R. Sproul

USCA11 Case: 22-13577 Document: 47-1 Date Filed: 08/09/2023 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-13577
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
JOHNNIE DEMOND JACKSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SHERIFF KEVIN R. SPROUL,
LT CARLA WATSON,
PHOEBE PUTNEY HOSPITAL,
NURSE AUDREY JOINER,
NURSE LYNN MONTGERARD,
Defendants-Appellees,
CPT JERROMA WILLIAMS, et al.,
USCA11 Case: 22-13577 Document: 47-1 Date Filed: 08/09/2023 Page: 2 of 5
2 Opinion of the Court 22-13577
Defendants.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia
D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cv-00028-LAG-TQL
____________________
Before JORDAN, NEWSOM, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Johnnie Jackson, proceeding pro se, appeals the district
court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Sheriff Kevin
Sproul, Shirley Adams, Carla Watson, and Dominique Kendricks
(collectively the “jail officers”), as well as in favor of Phoebe Putney
Memorial Hospital (“PPMH”), Lynn Montgerard, Audrea Joiner,
Escolethia Miller, and Sherryl Haugabrook (collectively the “med-
ical providers”), on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims. After responding
to the motions for summary judgment, Mr. Jackson filed motions
to supplement the record, which the district court denied. On ap-
peal Mr. Jackson argues that the court erred in granting summary
judgment for the jail officers and medical providers on his § 1983
claims alleging deliberate indifference as to food and medical
needs, denial of access to mail, failure to train nurses, and retalia-
tion. He also contends that the court erred in denying his motion
to supplement the record, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15.
USCA11 Case: 22-13577 Document: 47-1 Date Filed: 08/09/2023 Page: 3 of 5
22-13577 Opinion of the Court 3
We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary judg-
ment and construe all facts and draw all reasonable inferences in
favor of the non-moving party. See Burton v. Tampa Hous. Auth.,
271 F.3d 1274, 1276-77 (11th Cir. 2001). We review the denial of a
motion to supplement for abuse of discretion. See Shipner v. E. Air
Lines, Inc., 868 F.2d 401, 407 (11th Cir. 1989).
A party who fails to object to a magistrate judge’s findings
or recommendations contained in a report and recommendation in
accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives the
right to challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on un-
objected-to factual findings and legal conclusions, if the party was
informed of the time period for objecting and the consequences on
appeal for failing to object. See 11th Cir. R. 3-1. However, in the
absence of a proper objection, we may review the issue for plain
error if necessary in the interests of justice. See id.Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than at-
torney-drafted pleadings and are, therefore, liberally construed. See
Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998).
The leniency afforded pro se litigants with liberal construction does
not give a court license to act as de facto counsel or permit it to re-
write an otherwise deficient pleading to sustain an action. Campbell
v. Air Jamaica Ltd., 760 F.3d 1165, 1168-69 (11th Cir. 2014). “[I]ssues
not briefed on appeal by a pro se litigant are deemed abandoned.”
Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008) (citation omit-
ted). An appellant fails to adequately brief a claim when he does
not “plainly and prominently raise it.” Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian
USCA11 Case: 22-13577 Document: 47-1 Date Filed: 08/09/2023 Page: 4 of 5
4 Opinion of the Court 22-13577
Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 681 (11th Cir. 2014) (quotation marks omit-
ted). An appellant likewise abandons a claim when he “either
makes only passing references to it or raises it in a perfunctory man-
ner without supporting arguments and authority.” Id.; see also
United States v. Campbell, 26 F.4th 860, 873 (11th Cir. 2022) (en banc)
(holding that issues not raised in an initial brief are deemed for-
feited and will not be addressed absent extraordinary circum-
stances).
As an initial matter, Mr. Jackson has waived any argument
as to his claims for inadequate nutrition, mail interference, retalia-
tion, and failure to train because the magistrate judge informed
him of the timeline for objecting and he failed to object to the mag-
istrate judge’s legal conclusions regarding those claims. Further,
Mr. Jackson has abandoned on appeal his argument as to his claim
for inadequate medical care by failing to offer supporting argu-
ments or authority. See Sappupo, 739 F.3d at 681.
Turning to the denial of the motion to supplement,
“[d]istrict courts enjoy broad discretion in deciding how best to
manage the cases before them.” Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp.,
123 F.3d 1353, 1366 (11th Cir. 1997). “[A]bsent an affirmative show-
ing by the non-moving party of excusable neglect according to Rule
6(b) a court does not abuse its discretion when it refuses to accept
out-of-time affidavits” filed in opposition to a summary judgment
motion. See Farina v. Mission Inv. Tr., 615 F.2d 1068, 1076 (5th Cir.
1980); see also Clinkscales v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 831 F.2d 1565, 1568
USCA11 Case: 22-13577 Document: 47-1 Date Filed: 08/09/2023 Page: 5 of 5
22-13577 Opinion of the Court 5
(11th Cir. 1987) (same); Farina v. Mission Inv. Tr., 615 F.2d 1068,
1076 (5th Cir. 1980) (same).
Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion in deny-
ing Mr. Jackson’s motions to supplement the record because he
failed to show excusable neglect. He did not, for example, explain
why he was unable to submit his evidence with his declarations.
Further, Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d) is inapplicable because summary
judgment motions are not pleadings. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a).
AFFIRMED.