Jay Warning v. Bank of New York Mellon

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-12591
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cv-02635-CAP
JAY WARNING,
Plaintiff -Appellant,
versus
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON,
as Trustee for the Holder of Cwalt, Inc.,
alternative Loan Trust 2004-J13,
Mortgage Pass Through Certificate, Series 2004-J13,
f.k.a. The Bank of New York,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(April 7, 2014)
Case: 13-12591 Date Filed: 04/07/2014 Page: 1 of 4

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Before CARNES, Chief Judge, TJOFLAT and JORDAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Jay Warning, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his
complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and its denial of his two motions for
reconsideration. He contends that the district court erred in dismissing his pro se
action without informing him of the opportunity to file a motion to amend his
complaint or of his right to appeal. Warning also asserts that the district court
erred because it failed to explain the deficiencies in his complaint so that he could
properly amend it.
Warning’s initial, counseled complaint raised a number of claims that
stemmed from the Bank of New York Mellon’s foreclosure of his property. The
district court dismissed that complaint in August 2012. After retaining new
counsel, Warning filed a motion for reconsideration, which the district court
denied. He then submitted a second motion for reconsideration, this time as a pro
se litigant. The district court again denied the motion, citing a local rule which
prohibits parties from asking the court to reconsider its denial of an earlier motion
for reconsideration.
Warning appealed the district court’s dismissal of his complaint and its
denial of his two motions for reconsideration. This Court issued an order on
Case: 13-12591 Date Filed: 04/07/2014 Page: 2 of 4

-- 2 of 4 --

3
January 28, 2014, concluding that Warning’s appeal was untimely with respect to
the dismissal of his complaint and the denial of his first motion for reconsideration.
The order permitted Warning to proceed only with his appeal of the district court’s
denial of his second motion for reconsideration. As a result, we will consider only
Warning’s arguments challenging the denial of his second motion for
reconsideration.
Warning’s brief to this Court, however, does not address the denial of his
second motion for reconsideration except for the occasional passing reference to it.
He instead focuses on the district court’s dismissal of his complaint. Although we
liberally construe the pleadings of pro se litigants, “issues not briefed on appeal by
a pro se litigant are deemed abandoned.” Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874
(11th Cir. 2008). And even if he had not abandoned his challenge of the district
court’s denial of his second motion for reconsideration, the district court did not
abuse its discretion1 by denying it. Rule 7.2E of the Civil Local Rules of Practice
for the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia provides
that parties “shall not file motions to reconsider the court’s denial of a prior motion
for reconsideration.” LR 7.2E, NDGa. The district court’s reliance on that clearly
worded local rule was not an abuse of discretion. See Clark v. Hous. Auth. of City
1 We review the denial of a motion for reconsideration for abuse of discretion.
Richardson v. Johnson, 598 F.3d 734, 740 (11th Cir. 2010).
Case: 13-12591 Date Filed: 04/07/2014 Page: 3 of 4

-- 3 of 4 --

4
of Alma, 971 F.2d 723, 727 (11th Cir. 1992) (“[T]his circuit gives great deference
to a district court’s interpretation of its local rules.”).
AFFIRMED.
Case: 13-12591 Date Filed: 04/07/2014 Page: 4 of 4

-- 4 of 4 --