Robert L. Rehberger v. William (Hal) Craig, No. 06-13787 (11th Cir. 2007)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT JAN 31, 2007 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK No. 06-13787 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D. C. Docket No. 05-00900-CV-CAM-1 ROBERT L. REHBERGER, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus WILLIAM (HAL) CRAIG, Flint Circuit Superior Court Judge, TOMMY K. FLOYD, Flint Circuit District Attorney, et al., Defendants-Appellees. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia _________________________ (January 31, 2007) Before BIRCH, BLACK and PRYOR, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Robert L. Rehberger, a pro se state prisoner, appeals the district court s denial of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion to vacate and his connected motion for leave to file for a three-judge panel, related to his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action. On appeal, Rehberger only argues the merits of the underlying claims raised in his original § 1983 action. Litigants who fail to raise issues on appeal have abandoned those issues. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Swann, 27 F.3d 1539, 1542 (11th Cir. 1994). However, briefs should be read liberally to ascertain the issues raised. Id. Rehberger has failed to present any argument the district court abused its discretion in denying his Rule 60(b) motion or in denying his motion for leave to file for a three-judge panel, therefore, he has abandoned these claims. Id. at 1542. Even construing Rehberger s brief liberally as implicit arguments against the denial of his Rule 60(b) motion, the district court did not abuse its discretion because we previously affirmed the order he sought to vacate. Accordingly, because the arguments Rehberger raises are not properly before us and he has abandoned all other arguments, we affirm the district court s order. AFFIRMED. 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.