Tiffany Range v. U.S. Postmaster General

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-12380
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
TIFFANY P. RANGE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
U.S. POSTMASTER GENERAL,
Defendant-Appellee,
DEAJHE HUTCHINSON, et al.,
Defendants.
____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-12380 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 08/08/2023 Page: 1 of 4

-- 1 of 4 --

2 Opinion of the Court 22-12380
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cv-02755-VMC
____________________
Before R OSENBAUM , J ILL PRYOR , and B RASHER , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Tiffany Range, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s
order dismissing her second amended complaint with prejudice. In
a report and recommendation, the magistrate judge concluded that
the second amended complaint should be dismissed because it
failed to state a claim for relief and Range had failed to comply with
court orders. When the magistrate judge issued the report and rec-
ommendation, he warned the parties of the need to object, stating
that “[a] party [who] fails to object . . . waives the right to challenge
on appeal the District Court’s order based on any factual or legal
conclusions in the report and recommendation.” Doc. 25 at 1–2
(citing 11th Cir. R. 3-1).1 Range never objected. The district court
ultimately adopted the report and recommendation, granted the
motion to dismiss, and dismissed the second amended complaint
with prejudice. Range now appeals.
Because Range failed to object to the magistrate judge’s re-
port and recommendation, she waived her right to appeal the dis-
missal of her second amended complaint. Under 28 U.S.C.
1 “Doc.” numbers refer to the district court’s docket entries.
USCA11 Case: 22-12380 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 08/08/2023 Page: 2 of 4

-- 2 of 4 --

22-12380 Opinion of the Court 3
§ 636(b)(1), “any party may serve and file written objections” to a
magistrate judge’s report and recommendations within 14 days of
being served with the report and recommendation. The district
court must then “make a de novo determination of those portions
of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations
to which objection is made.” Id. But under our Circuit’s rules, a
party who fails to object to a magistrate judge’s report and recom-
mendation “waives the right to challenge on appeal the district
court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclu-
sions.” 11th Cir. R. 3-1. Still, even without “proper objection,” we
“may review on appeal for plain error if necessary in the interests
of justice.” Id.
Because Range failed to object to the magistrate judge’s re-
port and recommendation after being warned “of all of the conse-
quences on appeal for failing to object,” she waived any challenge
she 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)
(internal quotation marks omitted). Although we may review the
rulings of the district court for plain error, Range does not ask us
to do so. Indeed, her brief never acknowledges the magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation, much less argues that it is nec-
essary in the interests of justice for us to review the district court’s
decision after she failed to object. We thus will not consider this
issue, which Range has abandoned. See Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d
870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008) (noting that “issues not briefed on appeal
by a pro se litigant are deemed abandoned”).
AFFIRMED.
USCA11 Case: 22-12380 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 08/08/2023 Page: 3 of 4

-- 3 of 4 --

4 Opinion of the Court 22-12380
USCA11 Case: 22-12380 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 08/08/2023 Page: 4 of 4

-- 4 of 4 --