Case: 12-14219 Date Filed: 03/18/2013 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-14219
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 5:12-cv-00061-MTT
EARL A. BRYANT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CITIGROUP INC.,
CITIMORTAGE INC.,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia
________________________
(March 18, 2013)
Before TJOFLAT, PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
Case: 12-14219 Date Filed: 03/18/2013 Page: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Earl Bryant appeals the district court’s grant of Citigroup Inc. and
Citimorgage, Inc.’s (“CMI”) motion to dismiss his breach of contract, fraud, and
racketeering influenced corrupt organization violation (“RICO”) claims.
Citigroup moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. CMI moved to
dismiss for failure to state a claim. The district court dismissed for failure to state
a claim. On appeal, Bryant argues that Citigroup and CMI engaged in a deceptive
scheme and used their declaration of escrow deficiency to steal his property.
We liberally construe pro se pleadings. Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870,
874 (11th Cir. 2008). However, an appellant, even when proceeding pro se,
abandons an issue if he fails to raise it in his initial brief. Id. Further, an issue may
be deemed abandoned where a party only mentions it in passing, without providing
substantive argument in support. Rowe v. Schreiber, 139 F.3d 1381, 1382 n.1
(11th Cir. 1998)(refusing to reach an issue mentioned in passing in the counseled
plaintiff’s brief because the issue had no supporting argument or discussion).
We review the dismissal of an action for lack of personal jurisdiction de
novo. Madara v. Hall, 916 F.2d 1510, 1514 (11th Cir. 1990).
When a district court does not conduct a discretionary evidentiary
hearing on a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, the plaintiff
must establish a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction over a
nonresident defendant. A prima facie case is established if the
2
Case: 12-14219 Date Filed: 03/18/2013 Page: 3 of 4
plaintiff presents enough evidence to withstand a motion for directed
verdict.
Id.
We review a district court ruling on a Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 12(b)(6) motion de
novo. Hill v. White, 321 F.3d 1334, 1335 (11th Cir. 2003). While a complaint
does not need detailed factual allegations, it requires more than labels and
conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not
do. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65,
167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). Factual allegations must raise a right to relief above the
speculative level. Id., 127 S. Ct. at 1965. Although ordinarily nothing beyond the
face of the complaint and the attached documents are considered in analyzing a
motion to dismiss, we make an exception where the plaintiff refers to a document
in his complaint, it is central to his claim, the contents are not disputed, and the
defendant attaches it to his motion to dismiss. Fin. Sec. Assurance, Inc. v.
Stephens, Inc., 500 F.3d 1276, 1284 (11th Cir. 2007).
With respect to Citigroup Inc., the district court should have dismissed
Bryant’s complaint based on lack of personal jurisdiction because Bryant presented
no facts that supported personal jurisdiction over Citigroup Inc. See Republic of
Panama, 119 F.3d at 940; Madara, 916 at 1513-14.
With respect to CMI, Bryant abandoned his arguments on appeal because he
merely referenced the defendant’s use of a deceptive scheme of declaring “escrow
3
Case: 12-14219 Date Filed: 03/18/2013 Page: 4 of 4
deficiency” to take his property, without making substantive arguments to support
his position. Timson, 518 F.3d at 874, Rowe, 139 F.3d at 1382 n.1.
However, even upon considering the merits of Bryant’s appeal, the district
court did not err in granting CMI’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
Bryant’s conclusory allegations and lack of factual support do not meet the
required pleading standard. See Bell Atlantic Corp., 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S. Ct. at
1964-65. Furthermore, contrary to Bryant’s allegations that CMI had no authority
to require payment of an escrow deficiency, the security deed specifically states
that the lender had the authority to do so.
Accordingly, we affirm with respect to CMI but vacate and remand with
instructions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction with respect to Citigroup
Inc.
AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART.
4