MS Life Insurance Co. v. Donna J. Barfield, No. 06-10565 (11th Cir. 2006)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 06-10565 Non-Argument Calendar FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT OCTOBER 31, 2006 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK D. C. Docket No. 03-01065-CV-J-12-TEM MS LIFE INSURANCE CO., Plaintiff-CounterDefendant-Appellee, versus DONNA J. BARFIELD, Defendant-CounterClaimant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida (October 31, 2006) Before DUBINA, BLACK and MARCUS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: In her notice of appeal, appellant Donna Barfield ( Barfield ) appeals the district court s grant of summary judgment in favor of MS Life Insurance Company ( MS ), and third party-defendant Buddy Hutchinson, Inc., and that portion of the district court s order which denied Barfield s motion for continuance and for leave to amend. We first observe, after reading Barfield s amended initial brief, that she fails to address the district court s grant of summary judgment in favor of MS. Issues not argued on appeal are deemed waived. See United States v. Curtis, 380 F.3d 1308, 1310 (11th Cir. 2004) (discussing long-standing rule in this circuit that issues not raised in a party s initial brief on appeal are deemed waived), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 418 (2005). We review a district court s denial of trial continuances for abuse of discretion. United States v. Bowe, 221 F.3d 1183, 1189 (11th Cir. 2000). We also review a district court s denial of a motion for leave to amend a complaint for an abuse of discretion. Carruthers v. BSA Advertising, Inc., 357 F.3d 1213, 1217-18 (11th Cir. 2004). Assuming we have jurisdiction over the district court s order filed on October 18, 2005, which denied Barfield s motion to continue and motion for 2 leave to amend, we affirm that order because we conclude from the record that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its rulings. AFFIRMED. 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.