Glenn S. Rhodes v. Superior Judge Daniel Craig, et al

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-12150
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
GLENN S. RHODES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SUPERIOR JUDGE DANIEL CRAIG,
Individual and Official Capacity,
ADAM LAND,
Defense Lawyer, Individual and Official Capacity,
BARBARA CLARIDGE,
Plaintiff lawyer, Individual and Official Capacity,
SHAWN HAMMOND,
USCA11 Case: 22-12150 Document: 53-1 Date Filed: 05/18/2023 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2 Opinion of the Court 22-12150
Plaintiff lawyer, Individual and Official Capacity
Defendants-Appellees.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cv-00127-JRH-BKE
____________________
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and NEWSOM and GRANT, Cir-
cuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Glenn Rhodes appeals pro se the dismissal of his complaint
against a Georgia superior court judge, Daniel Craig; Rhodes’s for-
mer divorce attorneys, Barbara Claridge and Shawn Hammond;
and his ex-wife’s divorce attorney, Adam Land. 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The complaint alleged that the defendants violated Rhodes’s civil
and constitutional rights during his divorce proceedings in state
court. We affirm.
Rhodes argues that the district court erred by dismissing his
claims against Hammond as barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine,
but we need not address that argument because we can affirm on
the alternative ground stated by the district court. Before we will
reverse a “judgment that is based on multiple, independent
grounds, an appellant must convince us that every stated ground
for the judgment against him is incorrect.” Sapuppo v. Allstate
USCA11 Case: 22-12150 Document: 53-1 Date Filed: 05/18/2023 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

22-12150 Opinion of the Court 3
Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 680 (11th Cir. 2014). If the “appellant
fails to challenge properly on appeal one of the grounds on which
the district court based its judgment, he is deemed to have aban-
doned any challenge of that ground . . . .” Id. The district court
ruled alternatively that the complaint failed to state a claim against
Hammond under section 1983 because Rhodes “failed to allege an-
ything that would transform [] Hammond from a private individual
to a state actor.” Rhodes failed to challenge this alternative ruling
in his initial brief. We affirm on that ground. Id.
The district court dismissed the complaint against Judge
Craig and attorneys Land and Claridge for insufficient service of
process, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5), and Rhodes failed to challenge that
ruling in his initial brief or otherwise argue that he properly served
these individuals. So he has abandoned any challenge of that
ground for dismissal too. See Sapuppo, 739 F.3d at 680. And his re-
maining arguments are outside the scope of this appeal.
We AFFIRM the dismissal of Rhodes’s complaint and
DENY his motion to review residual impact from miscarriages of
justice.
USCA11 Case: 22-12150 Document: 53-1 Date Filed: 05/18/2023 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --