Harold B. Rotte v. Internal Revenue Service, No. 09-11825 (11th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 09-11825 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT MARCH 1, 2010 JOHN LEY CLERK D. C. Docket No. 07-14029-CV-JEM HAROLD B. ROTTE, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants-Appellees. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida _________________________ (March 1, 2010) Before TJOFLAT, WILSON and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Harold B. Rotte, proceeding pro se, filed a civil action against the United States for alleged unlawful action by the Internal Revenue Service ( IRS ), in violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 6511, 6502, 6334, and 6212, and seeking damages under 26 U.S.C. §§ 7432, 7433. Rotte now appeals the district court s orders granting partial summary judgment in favor of the United States, and dismissing for failure to prosecute those claims that survived summary judgment. On appeal, Rotte fails to present any argument regarding the district court s orders, and notes only in passing that he was not given much time to explain his case, the court was negligent in not considering the totality of his claims, and opposing counsel was vague and deceptive. The remainder of Rotte s brief concerns tax years that were not at issue before the district court, and makes unrelated allegations of fraud and deceit. In his reply brief, Rotte asserts for the first time, without argument, that the district court abused its discretion is dismissing his claims for failure to prosecute, the court did not give adequate consideration to his claims, and the IRS engaged in unauthorized collection activities in 2004. Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally construed. See Trawinski v. United Techs., 313 F.3d 1295, 1297 (11th Cir. 2002) (quotation omitted). However, 2 issues not briefed on appeal by a pro se litigant are deemed abandoned. Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S.Ct. 74 (2008). Furthermore, we do not consider arguments raised for the first time in a pro se litigant s reply brief. See Lovett v. Ray, 327 F.3d 1181, 1182-83 (11th Cir. 2003). Because Rotte offers no argument concerning the orders from which he is appealing, he has abandoned all claims on appeal. Furthermore, although he makes brief assertions related to the orders in his reply brief, we do not address these arguments because they were raised for the first time in his reply brief. Upon review of the record and consideration of the parties briefs, we affirm the district court s grant of partial summary judgment in favor of the government and the dismissal of Rotte s remaining claims for failure to prosecute. AFFIRMED.1 1 Rotte s request for oral argument is denied as is his motion to request permission to amend appeal. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
