Case: 18-10353 Date Filed: 12/04/2018 Page: 1 of 4

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________

No. 18-10353 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________

D.C. Docket Nos. 1:17-cv-23174-RNS; 17-bkc-14566-LMI

CARLOS COLETTA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON,

Defendant-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________

(December 4, 2018)

Before TJOFLAT, JORDAN and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: Case: 18-10353 Date Filed: 12/04/2018 Page: 2 of 4

Carlos Coletta, a debtor proceeding pro se, appeals the District Court’s order

affirming the Bankruptcy Court’s grant of relief from an automatic stay to The

Bank of New York Mellon (“Mellon”). He argues that the Bankruptcy Court erred

because it did not stipulate whether it was “annulling, terminating, or modifying”

the automatic stay, nor did it stipulate whether the automatic stay would remain in

effect for other creditors. He also argues, relying on

(d)(3), that

the stay should not have been lifted before 90 days after the issuance of the order

granting relief from the stay. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

We liberally construe complaints filed by pro se litigants, but issues not

briefed on appeal are deemed abandoned. Timson v. Sampson,

(11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam); see also Albra v. Advan, Inc.,

(11th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (noting that pro se litigants are required to follow

procedural rules). Furthermore, we will generally not consider an issue on appeal

unless it was raised in the district court. Access Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co.,

(11th Cir. 2004).

Coletta presented two arguments before the District Court. First, he argued

that the Bankruptcy Court erred by terminating the automatic stay when, under

(d), the court could have granted a partial lift of the stay. Second,

Coletta argued that the relief the Bankruptcy Court provided left him unprotected

from other creditors.

2 Case: 18-10353 Date Filed: 12/04/2018 Page: 3 of 4

On appeal, Coletta presents two seemingly new arguments. First, he argues

that the Bankruptcy Court erred by failing to “stipulate if the stay has been

modified, terminated or annulled” when it “simply [issued] . . . an order granting

relief from the automatic stay as to ‘Mellon’” without “mention[ing] if the Stay

will remain in effect in regards to the other creditors.” Appellant’s Br. at 10.

Second, Coletta argues that the stay, pursuant to

(d)(3), should not

have been lifted before 90 days after the issuance of the order granting Mellon’s

motion.

The second of Coletta’s arguments on appeal is certainly new—nothing

resembling this argument was made before the District Court. Thus, we decline to

evaluate that argument on the merits. Coletta’s first argument on appeal, although

phrased in a way that makes it seem distinct from his previous argument,

effectively recapitulates his arguments before the District Court: that the

Bankruptcy Court erred by terminating the automatic stay as to all creditors when

it should have lifted the stay only as to Mellon.

The problem with this argument is not that it’s new.1 The problem is that

Coletta is tilting at windmills: the relief he seeks has already been granted by the

Bankruptcy Court. As the District Court explained, “The bankruptcy court’s order

1 We do not read Coletta’s argument as a general challenge to the Bankruptcy Court’s order granting Mellon relief from the stay. Any argument to that effect would be barred as new. 3 Case: 18-10353 Date Filed: 12/04/2018 Page: 4 of 4

is, in fact, limited to only Bank Mellon and Bank Mellon’s interest in the Hialeah

property. Further, the bankruptcy court’s order granting Bank Mellon relief from

the stay does not affect the protections Coletta may have from his secured creditors

in his bankruptcy case.” Coletta v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, No. 17-23174-Civ-Scola,

, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 22, 2018) (emphasis added).

Accordingly, we affirm the District Court’s order.

AFFIRMED.

4