USCA11 Case: 21-13901 Document: 52-1 Date Filed: 03/08/2023 Page: 1 of 4

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 21-13901 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ GREGORY KEVIN SAMUELS, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus WMC MORTGAGE, LLC, GE HOLDINGS INC., GQ HOLDING 1329, LLC, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS, NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT OF FLORIDA, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

____________________ USCA11 Case: 21-13901 Document: 52-1 Date Filed: 03/08/2023 Page: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM: Gregory Samuels, proceeding pro se,1 appeals the district court’s dismissal -- for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction -- of Sam- uels’s civil action. No reversible error has been shown; we affirm.

In 2021, Samuels filed pro se this civil action in the district court. In his amended complaint, Samuels named seven defend- ants: (1) WMC Mortgage LLC; (2) GE Holdings Inc.; (3) GQ Hold- ings 1329, LLC; (4) Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.; (5) the Ninth Judicial Circuit Court of Florida; (6) Kondaur Capital Corporation; and (7) Tyler Stiglich. Briefly stated, Samuels pur- ported to assert claims against defendants for fraud and for viola- tion of his due-process rights stemming from the state-court fore- closure proceedings on his home.

The Ninth Judicial Circuit -- as a party defendant -- moved to dismiss Samuels’s amended complaint on various grounds,

USCA11 Case: 21-13901 Document: 52-1 Date Filed: 03/08/2023 Page: 3 of 4

21-13901 Opinion of the Court 3 including for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).

The district court granted the Ninth Judicial Circuit’s mo- tion. The district court concluded that it, as a federal court, lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to consider Samuels’s challenges to the state foreclosure proceedings. The district court thus dismissed without prejudice Samuels’s civil action as barred by the Rooker- Feldman2 doctrine. 3 This appeal followed.

On appeal, Samuels argues chiefly that the district court erred in dismissing his complaint without first addressing his claims on the merits: conduct Samuels says violated due process and his right to a jury trial. According to Samuels, “justice” outweighs “ju- dicial expedience” such that the district court should have exercised its discretion under Rule 12(i) and deferred ruling on the Ninth Ju- dicial Circuit’s Rule 12(b)(1) motion until a trial on the merits.

Samuels also asserts that his amended complaint stated a claim for relief and was, thus, not subject to dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

Construed liberally, Samuels’s pro se appellate brief chal- lenges only the timing of the district court’s ruling on the Rule 12(b)(1) motion. We reject Samuels’s timing argument: a federal Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feld- man, 460 U.S. 462 (1983).

USCA11 Case: 21-13901 Document: 52-1 Date Filed: 03/08/2023 Page: 4 of 4

Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 410 (11th Cir. 1999).

Samuels raises no substantive argument challenging the cor- rectness of the district court’s determination that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over Samuels’s claims or that Samuels’s claims were barred by Rooker-Feldman. Samuels has thus abandoned the argument that the district court concluded in- correctly that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. See Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 681 (11th Cir. 2014) (“A party fails to adequately ‘brief’ a claim when he does not ‘plainly and prominently’ raise it, ‘for instance by devoting a discrete sec- tion of his argument to those claims.’”); Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008) (“While we read briefs filed by pro se litigants liberally, issues not briefed on appeal by a pro se litigant are deemed abandoned.” (citations omitted)).

Because Samuels has failed to challenge the only basis for the district court’s order of dismissal, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.