[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 09-11825 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
MARCH 1, 2010
Non-Argument Calendar
JOHN LEY
________________________
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 07-14029-CV-JEM
HAROLD B. ROTTE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(March 1, 2010)
Before TJOFLAT, WILSON and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Harold B. Rotte, proceeding pro se, filed a civil action against the United
States for alleged unlawful action by the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”), in
violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 6511, 6502, 6334, and 6212, and seeking damages under
26 U.S.C. §§ 7432, 7433. Rotte now appeals the district court’s orders granting
partial summary judgment in favor of the United States, and dismissing for failure
to prosecute those claims that survived summary judgment. On appeal, Rotte fails
to present any argument regarding the district court’s orders, and notes only in
passing that “he was not given much time” to explain his case, the court was
“negligent” in not considering the totality of his claims, and opposing counsel was
“vague and deceptive.” The remainder of Rotte’s brief concerns tax years that
were not at issue before the district court, and makes unrelated allegations of fraud
and deceit. In his reply brief, Rotte asserts for the first time, without argument,
that the district court abused its discretion is dismissing his claims for failure to
prosecute, the court did not give adequate consideration to his claims, and the IRS
engaged in unauthorized collection activities in 2004.
“Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted
by attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally construed.” See Trawinski v. United
Techs., 313 F.3d 1295, 1297 (11th Cir. 2002) (quotation omitted). However,
2
“issues not briefed on appeal by a pro se litigant are deemed abandoned.” Timson
v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S.Ct. 74 (2008).
Furthermore, we do not consider arguments raised for the first time in a pro se
litigant’s reply brief. See Lovett v. Ray, 327 F.3d 1181, 1182-83 (11th Cir. 2003).
Because Rotte offers no argument concerning the orders from which he is
appealing, he has abandoned all claims on appeal. Furthermore, although he
makes brief assertions related to the orders in his reply brief, we do not address
these arguments because they were raised for the first time in his reply brief.
Upon review of the record and consideration of the parties’ briefs, we affirm
the district court’s grant of partial summary judgment in favor of the government
and the dismissal of Rotte’s remaining claims for failure to prosecute.
AFFIRMED.1
1
Rotte’s request for oral argument is denied as is his motion to request permission
to amend appeal.
3