[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-11260 APRIL 19, 2010
Non-Argument Calendar JOHN LEY
________________________ CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 08-00113-CV-3
FREDRICK ALLEN ELLIS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
STATE OF GEORGIA,
Department of Probation, et al.,
Defendants,
DANNY POWELL, Probation Officer,
Laurens County,
CHRIS BRACEWELL, Laurens Co. Deputy,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
_________________________
(April 19, 2010)
Before BLACK, HULL and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Frederick Ellis is a Georgia state prisoner convicted of enticing a child for
indecent purposes and influencing a witness. While on probation, his probation
officer and other law enforcement officials twice arrested Ellis for violating the
conditions of his probation and searched his residence. Each time, the state court
revoked Ellis’s probation and imposed a prison term. Ellis is currently serving his
sentence for the second probation revocation.
Ellis filed this pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint, alleging constitutional
violations against a variety of parties involved in the arrests and searches or in
Ellis’s subsequent probation revocations. The district court dismissed the majority
of these claims pursuant to a 28 U.S.C. § 1915A preliminary screening after Ellis
did not object to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. Later, the two
remaining claims – that Laurens County Probation Officer Danny Powell arrested
Ellis on two occasions without a warrant and that Laurens County Deputy Chris
Bracewell obtained false arrest warrants against Ellis – were dismissed for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction. In addition to entering these two dismissal orders, the
district court ruled on numerous motions filed by Ellis throughout the district court
proceedings.
2
On appeal, Ellis states that he is appealing “all rulings made in the case from
day one.” Ellis argues generally that his constitutional rights have been violated
and that the district court “responded wrong in, ‘denied,’ ‘dismissed,’ ‘moot’ or not
ruled upon.” However, Ellis does not provide substantive argument or identify
particular errors as to any of the district court’s rulings, including, most
importantly, the district court’s two dismissal orders.
To preserve an issue for appellate review, appellants must “not only state
their contentions to us, but also to give ‘the reasons for them,’” with citations to
legal authority and the record. Doe v. Moore, 410 F.3d 1337, 1349 n.10 (11th
Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9)(A)). A “cursory restatement of the
issues fails to raise the issue sufficiently for discussion” and thus the issues are
deemed abandoned. Id.; see also Rowe v. Schreiber, 139 F.3d 1381, 1382 n. 1
(11th Cir. 1998) (refusing to reach an issue mentioned in passing in the plaintiff’s
brief because the issue had no supporting argument or discussion). This rule also
applies to pro se appellants. See, e.g., Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874
(11th Cir. 2008); Horsley v. Feldt, 304 F.3d 1125, 1131 n.1 (11th Cir. 2002).
Here, Ellis’s appeal brief states that he is appealing all the district court’s
rulings and that all of those rulings are wrong, but, even construed liberally, does
3
not identify any particular error for us to review. Thus, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
4