Edward Rutland v. LDS Properties, Inc.

USCA11 Case: 25-12422 Document: 15-1 Date Filed: 02/24/2026 Page: 1 of 3

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-12422 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ EDWARD J. RUTLAND, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus

LDS PROPERTIES, INC., Defendant-Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 3:24-cv-00169-HES-LLL ____________________ Before NEWSOM, GRANT, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: Proceeding pro se, Edward Rutland sued LDS Properties, Inc., and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints after they USCA11 Case: 25-12422 Document: 15-1 Date Filed: 02/24/2026 Page: 2 of 3

2 Opinion of the Court 25-12422 exiled him from the flock. He alleged libel, elder abuse, and other wrongs by the church and sought millions in damages. After providing him with several opportunities to amend, the district court found that he had failed to state a claim against the church and dismissed it from the case with prejudice.

Rutland tried to amend his complaint to bring the church back into the suit, but the district court denied his motion for leave to amend because the claims against the church had already been dismissed with prejudice. And since Rutland had admitted that the other defendant, LDS Properties, had been added “only as a diversion” to keep the case alive, the district court also dismissed the claims against that party with prejudice. Rutland now appeals, and appears to challenge both the dismissal of his case and the various denials of leave to amend. We affirm.

I.

We review de novo a district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Hill v. White, 321 F.3d 1334, 1335 (11th Cir. 2003). We review the denial of a motion to amend for abuse of discretion. Brooks v. Warden, 800 F.3d 1295, 1300 (11th Cir. 2015).

II.

While “we read briefs filed by pro se litigants liberally, issues not briefed on appeal by a pro se litigant are deemed abandoned.”

Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008) (citation and emphasis omitted). An “appellant abandons a claim when he either makes only passing references to it or raises it in a perfunctory USCA11 Case: 25-12422 Document: 15-1 Date Filed: 02/24/2026 Page: 3 of 3

25-12422 Opinion of the Court 3 manner without supporting arguments and authority.” Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 681 (11th Cir. 2014).

Rutland has abandoned his claim. He fails to cite any authorities and raises issues only in a perfunctory manner, instead making a variety of assertions about defamation law, religious liberty, elder abuse, scheduling issues, and other topics. Even construed liberally, Rutland’s arguments fail. * * * We AFFIRM the district court’s denials of leave to amend and dismissal of the case.