Ronald A. Lawrence v. Thornburg Mortgage Home Loans Inc., 11th Cir. (2015)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsRonald A. Lawrence v. Thornburg Mortgage Home Loans Inc., 11th Cir. (2015)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsCase: 10-10584
Date Filed: 12/02/2015
Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 10-10584
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:09-cv-03356-ODE
RONALD A. LAWRENCE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
THORNBURG MORTGAGE HOME LOANS INC.,
CENLAR FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK,
MCCALLA RAYMER, LLC,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(December 2, 2015)
Before WILSON, WILLIAM PRYOR and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 10-10584
Date Filed: 12/02/2015
Page: 2 of 4
Ronald Lawrence appeals pro se the dismissal of his complaint that
Thornburg Mortgage Home Loans, Inc., Cenlar Federal Savings Bank, and
McCalla Raymer, LLC, conspired to retaliate and to defraud Lawrence in a loan
transaction that ended with a non-judicial foreclosure on his real property. See 42
U.S.C. 1983. The district court sua sponte dismissed the complaint against
Thornburg Mortgage as violative of the automatic stay in its proceedings under
Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Act. The district court dismissed Lawrences
complaint against Cenlar Bank and McCalla Raymer for failure to state a claim for
relief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), and for failure to plead with particularity the
circumstances constituting fraud, Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). We affirm.
Lawrence has abandoned any challenge that he could have made to the
dismissal of his complaints against Thornburg Mortgage and McCalla Raymer.
While we read briefs filed by pro se litigants liberally, issues not briefed on
appeal by a pro se litigant are deemed abandoned. Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d
870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008) (internal citations omitted). Lawrence does not mention,
much less dispute, the determination that his action against Thornburg Mortgage
violated the automatic stay imposed during its bankruptcy proceeding. And
Lawrence does not mention McCalla Raymer in his brief on appeal other than to
list the law firm in his certificate of interested persons. We deem abandoned any
2
Case: 10-10584
Date Filed: 12/02/2015
Page: 3 of 4
disagreement that Lawrence might have with the dismissal of his complaints
against Thornburg Mortgage and McCalla Raymer.
The district court did not err by dismissing Lawrences complaint against
Cenlar Bank. Lawrence complained about a conspiracy to violate his civil rights,
but he failed to allege that Cenlar Bank acted under color of state law, see 42
U.S.C. 1983, or that it reached an understanding with another defendant to
deprive Lawrence of any right under state or federal law, see Bailey v. Bd. of Cty.
Commrs of Alachua Cnty., Fla., 956 F.2d 1112, 1122 (11th Cir. 1992).
Lawrences conclusory allegations that defendants collectively and individually
participated in a conspiracy to retaliate and to commit fraud, misrepresentation
and to violate well established laws were insufficient to withstand the motion by
Cenlar Bank to dismiss. See Fullman v. Graddick, 739 F.2d 553, 55657 (11th Cir.
1984). Lawrence also complained about fraud, but he failed to allege when or what
fraudulent representations were purportedly made by Cenlar Bank. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 9(b); Am. Dental Assn v. Cigna Corp., 605 F.3d 1283, 1291 (11th Cir.
2010). Lawrence argues, for the first time, that during the judicial non-foreclosure
the defendants sought to recover on a promissory note and to prove up a claim
of damages, but we decline to consider issues not presented in the first instance
to the [district] court, BUC Intl Corp. v. Intl Yacht Council Ltd., 489 F.3d 1129,
1140 (11th Cir. 2007).
3
Case: 10-10584
Date Filed: 12/02/2015
Page: 4 of 4
The district court also did not abuse its discretion when it denied Lawrences
motion for reconsideration. As the district court stated, Lawrence failed to provide
sufficient reason . . . to reconsider the order of dismissal because his motion
merely repackaged the arguments that he originally asserted in his pro se
complaint and failed to identify any new evidence, intervening development or
change in the controlling law, or clear error or manifest injustice that would justify
. . . reconsideration of its [earlier] dismissal order. See Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d
1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007). And the district court was entitled to dismiss
Lawrences complaint without sua sponte granting leave to amend because
amendment would have been futile. See Cockrell v. Sparks, 510 F.3d 1307, 1310
(11th Cir. 2007).
We AFFIRM the dismissal of Lawrences complaint.
You might also like
- No ratings yetUnited States v. Michael Alan Levenite, A/K/A Nomad, United States of America v. Michael Alan Levenite, A/K/A Nomad, United States of America v. Travis Chad Dailey, A/K/A "Taz", United States of America v. Richard Frederick Connor, A/K/A Phez, United States of America v. Keith Alan Watson, A/K/A Tank, 277 F.3d 454, 4th Cir. (2002)17 pages
