USCA11 Case: 22-10248 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 06/12/2023 Page: 1 of 4

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 22-10248 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ MONICA TAYLOR, a.k.a. Stormy M, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,

Defendant-Appellee.

____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama D.C. Docket No. 1:20-cv-00583-CG-N USCA11 Case: 22-10248 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 06/12/2023 Page: 2 of 4

2 Opinion of the Court 22-10248 ____________________ Before JILL PRYOR, LAGOA, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: Monica Taylor appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to United States Department of the Treasury (“the De- partment”) because she failed to file her employment discrimina- tion complaint within 90 days of receiving the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (“EEOC”) final decision. On appeal, Taylor argues that we should overturn the district court’s decision and rule in her favor, and she reiterates the substantive claims she made in her complaint that she suffered discrimination based on her race, age, and disability. The Department responds by moving for summary affirmance of the district court’s judgment, and it ar- gues that Taylor does not argue in her initial brief that she filed her district court complaint within 90 days of receiving the EEOC’s fi- nal decision, and so she has abandoned any timeliness argument and the district court’s judgment is due to be affirmed. Alterna- tively, the Department argues that the district court’s judgment was indisputably correct as a matter of law because Taylor did not meet the procedural requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–5(f)(1) and did not meet the 90-day filing requirement.

Summary disposition is appropriate either where time is of the essence, such as “situations where important public policy is- sues are involved or those where rights delayed are rights denied,” or where “the position of one of the parties is clearly right as a USCA11 Case: 22-10248 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 06/12/2023 Page: 3 of 4

22-10248 Opinion of the Court 3 matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case, or where, as is more frequently the case, the appeal is frivolous.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1161-62 (5th Cir. 1969).

We review de novo a lower court’s grant of summary judg- ment, using the same legal standards applied by the lower court.

Alvarez v. Royal Atl. Developers, Inc., 610 F.3d 1253, 1263 (11th Cir. 2010). Summary judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). In determining whether the movant has met this burden, courts must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant.

Alvarez, 610 F.3d at 1263–64.

Issues not briefed on appeal are deemed forfeited and will not be addressed absent extraordinary circumstances. United States v. Campbell, 26 F.4th 860, 871–72 (11th Cir. 2022) (en banc), cert. de- nied, 143 S. Ct. 95 (2022). Additionally, to reverse a district court order that is based on multiple, independent grounds, a party must convince us that every stated ground for the judgment against her is incorrect. Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 680 (11th Cir. 2014). When an appellant fails to challenge properly on appeal one of the grounds on which the district court based its judg- ment, she is deemed to have abandoned any challenge of that ground, and it follows that the judgment is due to be affirmed. Id. Issues must be raised plainly and prominently on appeal. See id. at 680–81.

USCA11 Case: 22-10248 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 06/12/2023 Page: 4 of 4

4 Opinion of the Court 22-10248 We conclude that summary affirmance is warranted here because Taylor made no argument in her brief concerning the basis of the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the De- partment—the timeliness of her complaint after receiving the EEOC’s final decision. Accordingly, she forfeited any argument re- garding the timeliness of her complaint, and the Department is cor- rect as a matter of law that the district court’s judgment adopting the report and recommendation and granting summary judgment to the Department is due to be affirmed. Campbell, 26 F.4th at 871–72; Sapuppo, 739 F.3d at 680.

Accordingly, because the government’s position is correct as a matter of law, we GRANT the Department’s motion for sum- mary affirmance. Groendyke Transp., Inc., 406 F.2d at 1162.

AFFIRMED.