Yvonne Ward v. Select Portfolio Servicing, In

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Yvonne A. Ward. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 16-10078

Date Filed: 06/14/2017

Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-10078
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:15-cv-01640-RWS
YVONNE A. WARD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC. (SPS),
c/o Corporation Service Company,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(June 14, 2017)
Before MARCUS, WILSON, and WILLIAM PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 16-10078

Date Filed: 06/14/2017

Page: 2 of 3

Yvonne Ward, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal of her
complaint for failing to meet the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a)(2) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. After careful review of the record and the
parties’ briefs, we affirm.
Ward filed a pro se complaint against Corporation Service Company c/o
Select Portfolio Servicing (SPS) alleging mortgage fraud. A magistrate judge
concluded that Ward’s complaint failed to meet the pleading standard under Rule
8(a)(2). The district court agreed and dismissed Ward’s complaint without
prejudice.
Dismissal of a complaint for failure to comply with Rule 8(a)(2) is reviewed
for abuse of discretion. See Weiland v. Palm Beach Cty. Sheriff’s Office, 792 F.3d
1313, 1320 (11th Cir. 2015). Under Rule 8(a)(2), a complaint must contain “a
short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Rule 8(a)(2) only requires only that the statement “give the
defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.”
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964 (2007)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
We liberally construe a pro se plaintiff’s pleadings. Tannenbaum v. United
States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998) (per curiam). Although we show
leniency to pro se litigants, we will not “serve as de facto counsel” or “rewrite an
2

Case: 16-10078

Date Filed: 06/14/2017

Page: 3 of 3

otherwise deficient pleading in order to sustain an action.” GJR Invs., Inc. v. Cty
of Escambia, 132 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir. 1998). Pro se litigants are still
required “to conform to procedural rules.” Albra v. Advan, Inc., 490 F.3d 826, 829
(11th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Further, issues not briefed on appeal are considered abandoned, and “we do
not address arguments raised for the first time in a . . . reply brief. Timson v.
Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). We also “generally
will not consider an issue or theory that was not raised in the district court.” Narey
v. Dean, 32 F.3d 1521, 1526–27 (11th Cir. 1994) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
Ward does not meaningfully challenge the district court’s ruling on appeal,
and, in any event, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it found that
Ward did not meet the pleading standards. Ward’s complaint did not contain a
short and plain statement that gave notice of the basis of her claims and the
grounds upon which they were based. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Twombly, 550
U.S. at 555, 127 S. Ct. at 1964. Additionally, dismissal without prejudice was
appropriate because Ward never responded to SPS’s motion to dismiss and never
attempted to argue or show that she could amend her complaint to comply with the
pleading requirements.
AFFIRMED.
3