Teo A. Jamison v. Butts County Sheriff

USCA11 Case: 23-11218 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 10/18/2024 Page: 1 of 6

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________

No. 23-11218 Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

TEO A. JAMISON,

Plaintiff-Appellant, versus UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE, et al.,

Defendants, BUTTS COUNTY SHERIFF, CHIEF WHITE, Butts County Detention Center, CAPTAIN LEE, Butts County Detention Center, CAPTAIN MARY WEAVER, Butts County Detention Center, GRIEVANCE OFFICER BLACKMON, Butts County Detention Center, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 5:19-cv-00457-TES-MSH

____________________ Before BRANCH, BRASHER, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Teo Jamison, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants in his civil suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. After review, we affirm.

I. Background

Jamison, a federal prisoner, filed a pro se § 1983 complaint against several employees of the Butts County Detention Center (“BCDC”)—Sheriff Gary Long, Sergeant Bell, Major Gandee, Chief White, Captain Weaver, Captain Lee, Sergeant Cox, Officer Smith, 23-11218 Opinion of the Court 3 Dr. Peter Wrobel, and Nurse Donna Younger.1 He alleged, in relevant part, that during his time as a pre-trial detainee at BCDC, the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs based on the defendants’ alleged failure to allow him to use a cane for various underlying health conditions, which resulted in him falling on multiple occasions, in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment. 2 He sought compensatory and punitive damages.

The defendants ultimately moved for summary judgment, arguing that Jamison failed to state a viable claim for deliberate indifference and, regardless, they were entitled to qualified immunity. A magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that summary judgment be granted in favor of the defendants because (1) Jamison’s deliberate indifference claim failed because the evidence did not show that the defendants subjectively knew of, or disregarded, a risk of serious harm; and (2) the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. The magistrate judge informed the parties that they had 14 days in which to file objections to the R&R and cautioned that the failure to file objections would result in a waiver of the right to challenge the unobjected-to issue on appeal. Jamison filed objections to the R&R, but he did not object to the magistrate judge’s finding that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. The district court agreed that Jamison’s deliberate indifference claim failed as a matter of law and that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. Accordingly, the district court granted the motion for summary judgment. Jamison, proceeding pro se, timely appealed.

II. Discussion Jamison argues generally that his deliberate indifference claim based on the denial of the use of a cane was meritorious. 3 In response, the Appellees argue, in relevant part, that Jamison has waived his right to appeal by filing a conclusory brief without citations to the record or supporting legal authority.

“Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally construed.” Hughes v. Lott, 350 F.3d 1157, 1160 (11th Cir. 2003) (quotations omitted). Nevertheless, “[w]hile we read briefs filed by pro se litigants liberally, issues not briefed on appeal by a pro se 23-11218 Opinion of the Court 5 litigant are deemed abandoned.” Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008) (internal citation omitted). “Issues raised in a perfunctory manner, without supporting arguments and citation to authorities, are generally deemed to be waived.” N.L.R.B. v. McClain of Ga., Inc., 138 F.3d 1418, 1422 (11th Cir. 1998); see also Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 681 (11th Cir. 2014) (“We have long held that an appellant abandons a claim when he either makes only passing references to it or raises it in a perfunctory manner without supporting arguments and authority.”); Campbell v. Air Jam., Ltd., 760 F.3d 1165, 1168–69 (11th Cir. 2014) (explaining that, although we liberally construe pro se pleadings, the Court will not “serve as de facto counsel for a party” or “rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading in order to sustain an action” (quotations omitted)). By failing to provide supporting arguments and authority in his brief to challenge the denial of his deliberate indifference claim on the merits, Jamison abandoned the issue. N.L.R.B., 138 F.3d at 1422.

Furthermore, notwithstanding Jamison’s lack of supporting arguments and authority in support of his merits-based challenge, it is well-established that in order

[t]o obtain reversal of a district court judgment that is based on multiple, independent grounds, an appellant must convince us that every stated ground for the judgment against him is incorrect. When an appellant fails to challenge properly on appeal one of the grounds on which the district court based its judgment, he is deemed to have abandoned any challenge of that ground, and it follows that the judgment is due to be affirmed.

Sapuppo, 739 F.3d at 680. Jamison does not challenge the qualified immunity ruling, which is an independent ground supporting the judgment.4 Accordingly, the judgment is due to be affirmed on that ground. Id.

III. Conclusion For the above reasons, we affirm the grant of summary judgment.

AFFIRMED.