USCA11 Case: 22-10943 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 05/22/2023 Page: 1 of 5

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 22-10943 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ BRADLEY JAMES ALBERT, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus AMERICAN FAMILY INSURANCE COMPANY, AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, AMERICAN STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY OF WISCONSIN, AMERICAN FAMILY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendants-Appellees.

____________________ USCA11 Case: 22-10943 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 05/22/2023 Page: 2 of 5

2 Opinion of the Court 22-10943 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 1:14-cv-01112-ELR ____________________ Before JORDAN, GRANT, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: Bradley Albert, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s order denying two pro se motions for post-judgment relief. No re- versible error has been shown; we affirm.

This appeal is the second time this litigation has come before us for review. In 2014, Albert (through his then-lawyer) filed the underlying civil action against American Family Insurance Com- pany, American Family Mutual Insurance Company, American Standard Insurance Company of Wisconsin, and American Family Life Insurance Company (collectively, “American Family”). Albert asserted claims for unlawful employment retaliation and for breach of contract. The parties mediated the case and, in March 2016, reached a settlement whereby American Family agreed to pay Al- bert $85,000 in exchange for a general release of all claims.

Albert later disputed the settlement agreement. Around the same time, a dispute arose between Albert and his lawyer about attorneys’ fees: Albert ended his lawyer’s representation and pro- ceeded pro se.

In Albert’s first appeal before this Court, we affirmed the dis- trict court’s orders (1) granting American Family’s motion to USCA11 Case: 22-10943 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 05/22/2023 Page: 3 of 5

22-10943 Opinion of the Court 3 enforce the settlement agreement; (2) granting in part Albert’s for- mer lawyer’s motion to establish a charging lien; (3) denying Al- bert’s motion to return his case file; and (4) denying Albert’s mo- tion to recuse. See Albert v. Am. Family Ins. Co., 739 F. App’x 607 (11th Cir. 2018) (unpublished).

Following that appeal, the district court ordered the dis- bursement of the settlement proceeds and attorneys’ fees. The case was closed on 7 March 2019.

In April 2021, Albert filed pro se the motions underlying this appeal. Albert titled his motions this way: (1) “Motion to Reopen Under Rule 60(b)(6) and Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint or Initial Complaint” (“Motion 1”); and (2) “Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint” (“Motion 2”). Attached to Motion 2 was a document titled “Second Amended Complaint or Initial Complaint.”

The district court denied Albert’s motions. The district court determined that Albert’s motion to reopen -- filed almost three years after final judgment was entered -- was untimely under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60. The district court also denied Albert leave to file a second amended complaint, noting that amendment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) is unavailable after entry of a final judgment.

Construing liberally Albert’s appellate brief, we see no sub- stantive arguments challenging the district court’s rulings denying Albert’s motion to reopen and denying Albert leave to file a second amended complaint. Albert has thus forfeited the argument that the district court erred in denying those motions. See United States USCA11 Case: 22-10943 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 05/22/2023 Page: 4 of 5

4 Opinion of the Court 22-10943 v. Campbell, 26 F.4th 860, 863 (11th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (explaining that an appellant forfeits an argument by failing to raise it in his appellate brief ); 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.” (citation omitted)).

Albert argues chiefly that the district court erred in failing to construe his motions as an initial complaint actually then com- mencing a new civil action. In support of his argument, Albert points to the phrase “or Initial Complaint” in the title of Motion 1 and in the title of the document attached to Motion 2. According to Albert, the district court had discretion either (1) to grant his motions, reopen the case, and allow him to amend his complaint, or (2) to treat his motions as initiating a new civil action. We reject that argument.

To commence a new civil action, a plaintiff must file a com- plaint with the court, complete proper service of process by serv- ing the defendants with the summons and complaint, and pay the applicable court filing fee. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 3, 4; N.D. Ga. Civ. R. 3.2 (requiring advance payment of court filing fees). Despite his pro se status, Albert was required to comply with these procedural requirements. See Albra v. Advan, Inc., 490 F.3d 826, 829 (11th Cir. 2007).

Even if we assume that such titles might count for some- thing, that Albert included the phrase “or Initial Complaint” in the title of his motion and in the title of his proposed amended USCA11 Case: 22-10943 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 05/22/2023 Page: 5 of 5

22-10943 Opinion of the Court 5 complaint is insufficient to commence a new civil action. The Fed- eral Rules of Civil Procedure also make clear that a motion and a pleading are two distinct categories of documents: a motion cannot be construed, in the alternative, as an initial pleading. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.

The district court committed no error by failing to treat Al- bert’s motions as a finished initial complaint in a new civil action.

Because Albert’s motions really constituted no initial complaint, we reject Albert’s contention that the district court erred in failing to enter a default judgment against American Family.

AFFIRMED.