Case: 19-11087 Date Filed: 12/02/2019 Page: 1 of 2
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 19-11087
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:14-cv-00231-JRH-BKE
WARREN ADAM TAYLOR,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
AUGUSTA-RICHMOND COUNTY CONSOLIDATED
COMMISSIONERS,
MAYOR DAVID S. COPENHAVER,
MAYOR PRO TEM COREY JOHNSON,
Defendants-Appellees,
J. PATRICK CLAIBORNE,
GWENDOLYN B. TAYLOR,
Third Party Defendants-
Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
________________________
(December 2, 2019)
Case: 19-11087 Date Filed: 12/02/2019 Page: 2 of 2
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, BRANCH and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Warren Taylor appeals the denial of the motions that he filed after the
district court dismissed his complaint and closed his case. We affirmed that
dismissal. Taylor v. Taylor, No. 15-11751 (11th Cir. Oct. 7, 2015). In his opening
brief, Taylor fails to address the denial of his postjudgment motions, so we deem
abandoned any challenge that he could have made to those rulings. See Timson v.
Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008) (“While we read briefs filed by pro
se litigants liberally, issues not briefed on appeal by a pro se litigant are deemed
abandoned.”). We lack jurisdiction to review the issues that Taylor raises for the
first time in his brief because he specified in his notice of appeal that he was
challenging only the denial of his four postjudgment motions. See Whetstone
Candy Co. v. Kraft Foods, Inc., 351 F.3d 1067, 1079–80 (11th Cir. 2003) (“Where
an ‘appellant notices the appeal of a specified judgment only[,] this court has no
jurisdiction to review other judgments or issues which are not expressly referred to
and which are not impliedly intended for appeal.”). And insofar as Taylor
challenges any rulings entered before the closing of his case, his arguments are
barred by the law-of-the-case doctrine. See Jackson v. State of Ala. State Tenure
Comm’n, 405 F.3d 1276, 1283 (11th Cir. 2005).
We AFFIRM the denial of Taylor’s post-judgment motions.
2