Perry, Jr. Univ. AL at Birmingham

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
OCT 5, 2011
JOHN LEY
CLERK
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 11-12668
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:11-cv-01806-WMA
TAFT J. PERRY, JR.,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM,
UAB Undergraduate Admission,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
________________________
(October 5, 2011)
Before TJOFLAT, CARNES and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Taft J. Perry, Jr. appeals pro se from the district court’s sua sponte dismissal

-- 1 of 3 --

of his amended complaint for want of prosecution. On appeal, Perry does not
challenge the district court’s dismissal of his suit, but instead argues the merits of
his complaint that he was denied admission to the undergraduate program at the
University of Alabama at Birmingham because defendants improperly calculated
some of the grades he received at a prior university.
We may affirm a decision of the district court on any ground supported by
the record. Bircoll v. Miami-Dade Cnty., 480 F.3d 1072, 1088 n.21 (11th Cir.
2007). Pro se pleadings are construed liberally. Hughes v. Lott, 350 F.3d 1157,
1160 (11th Cir. 2003). Issues not briefed on appeal are deemed abandoned.
Access Now, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1330 (11th Cir. 2004).
A court shall dismiss a case proceeding in forma pauperis “at any time if the
court determines that . . . the action . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). A pleading that states a claim for
relief must contain “a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s
jurisdiction,” as well as “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(1)-(2).
Perry has abandoned any challenge to the district court’s dismissal of his
amended complaint by failing to raise that issue in his appellate brief. Moreover,
the district court did not err in dismissing Perry’s complaint because Perry did not
2

-- 2 of 3 --

assert any federal constitutional or statutory violation in his complaint.
AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --