Robert Rockwell Turner, Jr. et al v. Tracy K. Baldwin, et al

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 20-11040
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 3:18-cv-01275-PDB
ROBERT ROCKWELL TURNER, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
TRACY K. BALDWIN,
Deputy Clerk,
LAMAR JENKINS,
Suwannee County Property Appraiser,
Defendants - Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(January 6, 2021)
Before JORDAN, GRANT and DUBINA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
USCA11 Case: 20-11040 Date Filed: 01/06/2021 Page: 1 of 4

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Appellant, Robert Turner, appeals pro se the magistrate judge’s order
denying his motion for reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s order dismissing
his amended complaint brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 In his amended
complaint, Turner challenged the 2015 removal of his homestead exemption for his
Suwannee County, Florida, property. Turner claimed that Tracy Baldwin, Deputy
Clerk for Suwannee County, Florida, and Lamar Jenkins, the Suwannee County
Property Appraiser, failed to disclose in a tax sale that the property was Turner’s
homestead and removed the homestead exemption without a verifiable signed
complaint, all in violation of his Fourteenth Amendment rights of equal protection,
procedural due process, and substantive due process. He also asserted that these
actions by Baldwin and Jenkins constituted a taking for which he should receive
just compensation. The magistrate judge dismissed the amended complaint on
comity grounds. After reviewing the record and reading the parties’ briefs, we
affirm the magistrate judge’s order denying Turner’s motion for reconsideration.
I.
This court reviews for abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of a
post-judgment motion. Green v. Union Foundry Co., 281 F.3d 1229, 1233 (11th
Cir. 2002). “A district court abuses its discretion if it applies an incorrect legal
1 The parties consented to the magistrate judge conducting all proceedings including the entry of
final judgment . See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1).
USCA11 Case: 20-11040 Date Filed: 01/06/2021 Page: 2 of 4

-- 2 of 4 --

3
standard, applies the law in an unreasonable or incorrect manner, follows improper
procedures in making a determination, or makes findings of fact that are clearly
erroneous.” Giovanno v. Fabec, 804 F.3d 1361, 1365 (11th Cir. 2015) (quoting
Surtain v. Hamlin Terrace Found., 789 F.3d 1239, 1244 (11th Cir. 2015)). We
liberally construe pro se briefs but a pro se party abandons an issue by failing to
argue it in his brief. Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008).
II.
On appeal, Turner reasserts the claims and arguments he made in his
amended complaint: that Jenkins and Baldwin illegally deprived him of his
constitutional rights when they removed his homestead exemption and sold the
property without giving proper notice. He asserts that because these individuals
violated his procedural due process rights, his equal protection rights, and his Fifth
Amendment rights, the proper avenue for his relief is in federal court. Both
Jenkins and Baldwin respond that Turner fails to explain how the magistrate judge
abused its discretion in denying his motion for reconsideration, which is the order
Turner noticed in his appeal. Rather, they contend that Turner improperly argues
the merits of his case. Alternatively, Jenkins and Baldwin assert that the
magistrate judge did not abuse its discretion in refusing to reopen the case because
it properly applied comity in declining to hear the case and in refusing to interfere
in state tax matters.
USCA11 Case: 20-11040 Date Filed: 01/06/2021 Page: 3 of 4

-- 3 of 4 --

4
A party cannot use a motion for reconsideration “to relitigate old matters,
raise argument or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of
judgment.” Michael Linet, Inc. v. Vill. of Wellington, Fla., 408 F.3d 757, 763
(11th Cir. 2005). Turner attempts to do just that in this appeal. Turner fails to
argue that the magistrate judge abused her discretion in denying his motion for
reconsideration, and he does not raise any argument as to why the denial of his
motion was improper. Rather, Turner reasserts the contentions from his amended
complaint, arguing that he properly stated a claim for relief. As such, Turner fails
to challenge the proper order on appeal. See Whetstone Candy Co. v. Kraft Foods,
Inc., 351 F.3d 1067, 1079–80 (11th Cir. 2003) (“Where an appellant notices the
appeal of a specified judgment only [,] this court has no jurisdiction to review other
judgments or issues which are not expressly referred to and which are not
impliedly intended for appeal.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly,
we conclude from the record that Turner has abandoned the only issue on appeal,
and, therefore, we affirm the district court’s order denying Turner’s motion for
reconsideration.
AFFIRMED.
USCA11 Case: 20-11040 Date Filed: 01/06/2021 Page: 4 of 4

-- 4 of 4 --