Andrew Thompson v. Branch Banking & Trust Company

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 20-13114
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:19-cv-60108-RAR
ANDREW THOMPSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
BRANCH BANKING & TRUST COMPANY,
Defendant - Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(September 22, 2021)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, WILSON and ROSENBAUM, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM:
USCA11 Case: 20-13114 Date Filed: 09/22/2021 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Andrew Thompson appeals pro se the summary judgment against his second
amended complaint that Branch Banking & Trust Company violated the
Telecommunications Consumer Protection Act of 1991. See 47 U.S.C. § 227.
Thompson also challenges the award of attorneys’ fees to Branch Banking, but we
earlier dismissed his appeal of that decision for failure to prosecute. Because
Thompson failed to object after a magistrate judge recommended that the district
court enter summary judgment in favor of Branch Banking, we affirm.
Thompson waived his right to appeal the summary judgment against his
complaint. A party must “serve and file written objections” to a magistrate judge’s
report and recommendation within 14 days of that decision, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1),
and the failure to do so “waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court’s
order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions,” 11th Cir. R. 3-1. As
Branch Banking argues, Thompson failed to heed the magistrate judge’s warning
that the “[f]ailure to timely file objections . . . bar[red] . . . a de novo determination
by the District Judge of an issue covered in the Report and . . . [any] attack[] on
appeal [to] unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions.” In the absence of an
objection, the district court accepted the magistrate judge’s determination that no
material dispute existed that Branch Banking did not violate the Act when it had
express permission to call a second party who forwarded the telephone calls to
Thompson. See Mais v. Gulf Coast Collection Bureau, Inc., 768 F.3d 1110, 1118
USCA11 Case: 20-13114 Date Filed: 09/22/2021 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

3
(11th Cir. 2014). Because Thompson failed to object after being warned “of all of
the consequences on appeal for failing to object,” he waived any challenge he
could have made to the adverse ruling. See Harrigan v. Metro Dade Police Dep’t
Station #4, 977 F.3d 1185, 1192 (11th Cir. 2020).
We AFFIRM the summary judgment in favor of Branch Banking & Trust.
USCA11 Case: 20-13114 Date Filed: 09/22/2021 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --