Regina Height v. Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 23-12645
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
REGINA HEIGHT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Defendant-Appellee.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 8:19-cv-02753-MSS-JSS
____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-12645 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 02/21/2024 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2 Opinion of the Court 23-12645
Before WILLIAM PRYOR , Chief Judge, and B RASHER and ABUDU, Cir-
cuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Regina Height appeals pro se the summary judgment in favor
of the Department of Veterans Affairs and against her complaint of
disability discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environ-
ment. The Department moves for summary affirmance. We grant
that motion and affirm.
Summary disposition is appropriate either where time is of
the essence, such as “situations where important public policy is-
sues are involved or those where rights delayed are rights denied,”
or 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, or where, as is more frequently the case, the
appeal is frivolous.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158,
1161, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969).
Summary affirmance is appropriate. Height has abandoned
any challenge to the summary judgment entered against her by fail-
ing to raise any meaningful argument against it. Sapuppo v. Allstate
Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 680 (11th Cir. 2014) (“When an ap-
pellant fails to challenge properly on appeal one of the grounds on
which the district court based its judgment, [s]he is deemed to have
abandoned any challenge of that ground, and it follows that the
judgment is due to be affirmed.”). The district court ruled that no
reasonable jury could find that Height suffered an adverse
USCA11 Case: 23-12645 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 02/21/2024 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

23-12645 Opinion of the Court 3
employment action due to her disabilities and rejected her argu-
ment that the Department failed to provide her with reasonable
accommodations. The district court also ruled that Height’s claim
of retaliation and a hostile work environment lacked support in the
record.
Height challenges none of these rulings. Instead, for the first
time on appeal, Height argues that the Department’s “subordinate
employees” lacked the authority to issue executive decisions, in-
cluding decisions about her employment, on behalf of the Secre-
tary. See Access Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1331 (11th
Cir. 2004) (“[A]n issue not raised in the district court and raised for
the first time in an appeal will not be considered by this court.”).
Height’s brief contains no citation to the record or to any legal au-
thority regarding her claims for relief, nor does her one-page argu-
ment provide any explanation of how the district court might have
erred. See Sapuppo, 739 F.3d at 680; Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A). Be-
cause Height has forfeited any challenge to any ground for the
judgment of the district court, there is no substantial question as to
the outcome of the case. The Department’s position that we must
affirm is correct as a matter of law. See Groendyke, 406 F.2d at 1162.
We GRANT the motion for summary affirmance and
AFFIRM the judgment in favor of the Department.
USCA11 Case: 23-12645 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 02/21/2024 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --