[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JULY 26, 2011
No. 10-15302
JOHN LEY
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D.C. Docket Nos. 1:09-cv-22372-CMA,
1:07-cr-20214-CMA-2
DARRYL JOHN JENNINGS,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Respondent-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(July 26, 2011)
Before HULL, PRYOR and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Darryl John Jennings, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the
district court’s denial of his motion for sanctions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
37(b)(2).1 Jennings requested sanctions against the clerk of the district court for
failing to provide certain documents relating to Jennings’s appeal of the denial of
his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate. Specifically, Jennings claims the clerk’s
failure to deliver two documents Jennings requested was deliberate and violated
the integrity of the discovery process. After reviewing the record and briefs, we
affirm the district court.2
Under Rule 37, “if a party or a party’s officer, director, or managing
agent—or a witness . . . fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery . . . ,
the court where the action is pending may issue” orders imposing sanctions. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A). Rule 37 also provides that, unless the failure was justified,
the court must order “the disobedient party, the attorney advising that party, or
both” to pay expenses. Id. § 37(b)(2)(C).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Jennings’s
motion for sanctions. Rule 37 does not allow the relief sought by Jennings
because the clerk was not a party to the litigation. Furthermore, the record fully
1
Jennings lists several other issues, including a substantive constitutional claim, under the
“Statement of Issues” section in his brief. He fails to argue these issues in his brief and has thus
abandoned them for purposes of this appeal. See Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th
Cir. 2008) (stating that “issues not briefed on appeal by a pro se litigant are deemed
abandoned.”).
2
We review dismissals under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 for abuse of discretion. Gratton v. Great
Am. Commc’ns, 178 F.3d 1373, 1374 (11th Cir. 1999) (per curiam).
2
supports the conclusion that the clerk complied with the court’s orders and
provided Jennings with the requested documents.
AFFIRMED.
3