Deborah Kilgore v. America, The Attorney General Office

USCA11 Case: 23-12257 Document: 21-1 Date Filed: 03/25/2024 Page: 1 of 4

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________

No. 23-12257 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

DEBORAH KILGORE, RHONDOLYN KILGORE,

Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY OFFICE OF ATLANTA, et al.,

Defendants, AMERICA, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OFFICE, 2 Opinion of the Court 23-12257

Defendant-Appellee.

____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia

D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cv-05327-LMM

____________________ Before JORDAN, LAGOA, and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Deborah and Rhondolyn Kilgore appeal following the dis- trict court’s dismissal of their civil suit for failure to obey court or- ders and for want of prosecution. The Government moves for summary affirmance, asserting the Kilgores have failed to preserve any challenge to the district court’s order.

Appellants can abandon issues by failing to challenge them on appeal. See Irwin v. Hawk, 40 F.3d 347, 347 n.1 (11th Cir. 1994). Appellants can also abandon claims by presenting them only in “passing references” or “in a perfunctory manner without support- ing arguments and authority.” Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins., Co., 739 F.3d 678, 681 (11th Cir. 2014). “[S]imply stating that an issue exists,” without providing reasoning and citation to authority that the appellants rely on, “constitutes abandonment of that issue.” Id. (quoting Singh v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 561 F.3d 1275, 1278 (11th Cir. 2009)).

23-12257 Opinion of the Court 3

Pro se pleadings are held to a “less stringent” standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and will be liberally construed. Campbell v. Air Jam. Ltd., 760 F.3d 1165, 1168 (11th Cir. 2014). How- ever, we will not “serve as de facto counsel for a party [or] rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading in order to sustain an action.” Id. at 1168–69 (quoting GJR Invs., Inc. v. Cnty. of Escambia, Fla., 132 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir. 1998)).

The Government is clearly correct as a matter of law that the Kilgores have abandoned any challenge to the relevant district court order in their initial brief. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969) 1 (stating summary disposition is appropriate where “the position of one of the parties is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case”). The Kilgores’ initial brief identifies two “issues” but fails to offer supporting argument on either issue and—as the Government notes—neither issue, even liberally con- strued, relates to the reason for dismissal of the Kilgores’ suit. See Campbell, 760 F.3d at 1168. Under these circumstances, and even with liberal construction, the Government is clearly correct that the Kilgores have abandoned any challenge to the dismissal of their suit in their initial brief. Sapuppo, 739 F.3d at 681; Irwin, 40 F.3d at 347 n.1. Because the Government’s position is clearly correct as a matter of law, there is no substantial question as to the outcome of 4 Opinion of the Court 23-12257 the case, and we grant the motion for summary affirmance. 2 See Groendyke Transp., 406 F.2d at 1162.

AFFIRMED.

2 The Government’s motion to stay the briefing schedule is DENIED as moot.