Jeffrey Lance Hill, Sr. v. Leandra G. Johnson, et al., No. 18-12215 (11th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on September 20, 2019.
Download PDF
USCA11 Case: 21-11273 Date Filed: 08/09/2022 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 21-11273 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ JEFFREY LANCE HILL, SR., Plaintiff-Appellant, versus LEANDRA G. JOHNSON, individually, GREGORY S. PARKER, individually, JENNIFER B. SPRINGFIELD, individually, WILLIAM F. WILLIAMS, III, individually, JOEL F. FOREMAN, USCA11 Case: 21-11273 2 Date Filed: 08/09/2022 Page: 2 of 3 Opinion of the Court 21-11273 individually, et al., Defendants-Appellees. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 3:17-cv-01342-HLA-JRK ____________________ Before JORDAN, NEWSOM, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: In 2017, Jeffrey Hill filed a pro se civil rights complaint against, among others, the Suwannee River Water Management District (SRWMD). That complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim, and we affirmed on appeal. Hill v. Johnson, 787 F. App’x 604, 606–07 (11th Cir. 2019). Thereafter, SRWMD filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs. Hill did not file a response, and the district court granted the motion in part, awarding SRWMD $8,924.00 in attorney’s fees and $245.87 in costs. Hill then filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. Hill, proceeding pro se, now appeals from the order denying his motion for reconsideration. However, Hill fails to raise any USCA11 Case: 21-11273 21-11273 Date Filed: 08/09/2022 Opinion of the Court Page: 3 of 3 3 argument related to the denial of his motion for reconsideration.1 Instead, he quarrels with the previous dismissal of his complaint and our decision affirming that dismissal, and the district court’s decision to award attorney’s fees and costs, and he argues that certain aspects of the Florida state court judgments against him are improper. None of those issues are before us. Accordingly, Hill has abandoned any challenge to the denial of the motion for reconsideration. 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.” (internal citation omitted)). AFFIRMED. 1 Previously, we dismissed as untimely the portion of Hill’s appeal that sought to appeal the district court’s order awarding attorney’s fees and costs to SRWMD. Thus, the only order before us is the district court’s order denying Hill’s motion for reconsideration.
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.
