Warren Adam Taylor v. Augusta-Richmond County Consolidated Commissioners, et al, No. 15-11751 (11th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on October 7, 2015.
Download PDF
Case: 19-11087 Date Filed: 12/02/2019 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 19-11087 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:14-cv-00231-JRH-BKE WARREN ADAM TAYLOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus AUGUSTA-RICHMOND COUNTY CONSOLIDATED COMMISSIONERS, MAYOR DAVID S. COPENHAVER, MAYOR PRO TEM COREY JOHNSON, Defendants-Appellees, J. PATRICK CLAIBORNE, GWENDOLYN B. TAYLOR, Third Party DefendantsAppellees. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia ________________________ (December 2, 2019) Case: 19-11087 Date Filed: 12/02/2019 Page: 2 of 2 Before WILLIAM PRYOR, BRANCH and FAY, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Warren Taylor appeals the denial of the motions that he filed after the district court dismissed his complaint and closed his case. We affirmed that dismissal. Taylor v. Taylor, No. 15-11751 (11th Cir. Oct. 7, 2015). In his opening brief, Taylor fails to address the denial of his postjudgment motions, so we deem abandoned any challenge that he could have made to those rulings. See Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008) (“While we read briefs filed by pro se litigants liberally, issues not briefed on appeal by a pro se litigant are deemed abandoned.”). We lack jurisdiction to review the issues that Taylor raises for the first time in his brief because he specified in his notice of appeal that he was challenging only the denial of his four postjudgment motions. See Whetstone Candy Co. v. Kraft Foods, Inc., 351 F.3d 1067, 1079–80 (11th Cir. 2003) (“Where an ‘appellant notices the appeal of a specified judgment only[,] this court has no jurisdiction to review other judgments or issues which are not expressly referred to and which are not impliedly intended for appeal.”). And insofar as Taylor challenges any rulings entered before the closing of his case, his arguments are barred by the law-of-the-case doctrine. See Jackson v. State of Ala. State Tenure Comm’n, 405 F.3d 1276, 1283 (11th Cir. 2005). We AFFIRM the denial of Taylor’s post-judgment motions. 2
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.
