Edward J. Jablonski v. The Travelers Companies, Inc., No. 16-16474 (11th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 16-16474 Date Filed: 10/23/2018 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 16-16474 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 2:15-cv-00365-SPC-CM EDWARD J. JABLONSKI, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THE TRAVELERS COMPANIES, INC., Defendant - Appellee. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida ________________________ (October 23, 2018) Before WILLIAM PRYOR, MARTIN, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Edward J. Jablonski, proceeding pro se, appeals the denial of two Rule 60(b) motions to reopen his action against The Travelers Companies, Inc., as well as an Case: 16-16474 Date Filed: 10/23/2018 Page: 2 of 2 order striking two complaints he filed after the District Court dismissed his second amended complaint with prejudice and entered final judgment. We read appellate briefs filed by pro se litigants liberally. Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008). Even so, we may not construct arguments where none exist, Cofield v. Ala. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 936 F.2d 512, 514 n.2 (11th Cir. 1991), and generally will not consider issues that the appellant does not include in his initial brief. Timson, 518 F.3d at 874. Mr. Jablonski’s complaints in the district court and his initial brief on appeal allege unspecified frauds by Travelers. His brief also indicates he has previously experienced an aneurysm and may suffer from aphasia and related impairments. His brief expresses stress and worry because of ongoing litigation, as well as fear of suffering another aneurysm. The court sympathizes with Mr. Jablonski’s circumstances, which clearly make litigating on his own behalf difficult. However, we cannot discern any argument from his brief for why the district court erred by denying his postjudgment motions. See Timson, 518 F.3d at 874. We therefore affirm. 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.
