Deborah Kilgore, et al v. America, The Attorney General Office

[DO NOT PUBLISH]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,
USCA11 Case: 23-12257 Document: 21-1 Date Filed: 03/25/2024 Page: 1 of 4

-- 1 of 4 --

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 J ORDAN , L AGOA, and B LACK , 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)).
USCA11 Case: 23-12257 Document: 21-1 Date Filed: 03/25/2024 Page: 2 of 4

-- 2 of 4 --

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
1 In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc),
this Court adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Cir-
cuit handed down prior to close of business on September 30, 1981.
USCA11 Case: 23-12257 Document: 21-1 Date Filed: 03/25/2024 Page: 3 of 4

-- 3 of 4 --

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

-- 4 of 4 --