Personna Walker v. Wesley Peach

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-13033
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
PERSONNA WALKER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
WESLEY PEACH,
Defendant-Appellee.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia
D.C. Docket No. 7:22-cv-00067-HL
____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-13033 Document: 12-1 Date Filed: 04/05/2023 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2 Opinion of the Court 22-13033
Before J ORDAN, NEWSOM , and BRANCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Personna Walker filed an employment-discrimination suit.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the district court dismissed
the complaint as frivolous. Proceeding
pro se, Walker appeals.
We review the court’s screening determination that the
complaint is frivolous for an abuse of discretion.
Miller v. Donald,
541 F.3d 1091, 1100 (11th Cir. 2008). Although
pro se pleadings are
to be liberally construed and held to a less stringent standard than
counseled pleadings,
id., “issues not briefed on appeal by a
pro se
litigant are [still] deemed abandoned,”
Timson v. Sampson, 518
F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008). An appellant abandons an issue by
failing to “plainly and prominently” raise it in her opening brief to
us.
See Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 681
(11th Cir. 2014). An appellant also abandons an issue when she
makes only passing references to it or raises it in a perfunctory man-
ner without supporting arguments and authority.
Id. at 681–83.
Even liberally construed, Walker’s brief fails to “plainly and
prominently” raise any issues for appeal and does so, at best, only
USCA11 Case: 22-13033 Document: 12-1 Date Filed: 04/05/2023 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

22-13033 Opinion of the Court 3
“perfuctor[ily].” The “Argument” section of her brief comprises
two pages listing four legal principles1 and three other sentences.2
Their application to Walker’s case is not readily apparent.
We must conclude, therefore, that Walker has not properly raised
any issues for us to decide.
AFFIRMED.
1 The brief quotes or paraphrases: (1) a discrimination treatise discussing the
availability of equitable tolling, (2) a case stating that principle,
see Baldwin
Cnty. Welcome Ctr. v. Brown, 466 U.S. 147, 151 (1984), (3) a regulation allow-
ing the EEOC to assist complainants even after sending a right-to-sue notice,
29 C.F.R. § 1601.28, and (4) a Georgia statute describing when its statute of
limitation begins running, Ga. Code Ann. § 9-3-96.
2 The first sentence says: “In this instance, the ruling was determined without
full consideration of the law.” Br. of Appellant at 4. The final two sentences
read: “As a result, the judge tolling was based upon the complaint; not on the
right to sue letter issued by the EEOC. Dismissing the complaint with failure
to state a claim and the defendant is immune from relief.”
Id. at 5.
USCA11 Case: 22-13033 Document: 12-1 Date Filed: 04/05/2023 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --