Joseph Page Messier v. Timothy Robert Devine

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JANUARY 27, 2010
JOHN LEY
ACTING CLERK
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 09-13251
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 09-20279-CV-JLK
JOSEPH PAGE MESSIER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
TIMOTHY ROBERT DEVINE,
U.S. Secret Service individually,
personally and in his official capacity,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(January 27, 2010)
Before TJOFLAT, MARCUS and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

-- 1 of 3 --

Joseph Page Messier, a private individual proceeding pro se, appeals the
district court’s sua sponte dismissal of his complaint, brought pursuant to Bivens v.
Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971),
for failure to state a claim. The district court dismissed the complaint, finding that
Messier’s federal claims all were barred by either the applicable statute of
limitations or Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), and that the remaining
state law claims were due to be dismissed so that they could be adjudicated in state
court. On appeal, Messier has not addressed any of the district court’s reasons for
dismissal, but simply has reiterated his underlying substantive claims raised in his
complaint. After thorough review, we affirm.
We review de novo a district court’s sua sponte dismissal for failure to state
a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), and view the allegations in the
complaint as true. Hughes v. Lott, 350 F.3d 1157, 1159-60 (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). Further, a party
may not “incorporate by reference” arguments presented to the district court, but
must specifically and clearly identify the issues presented for review, with citations
to the authorities and portions of the record on which the appellant relies. Four
2

-- 2 of 3 --

Seasons Hotels & Resorts, B.V. v. Consorcio Barr S.A., 377 F.3d 1164, 1167 n.4
(11th Cir. 2004).
On appeal, Messier has not argued that the district court erred by (1) finding
that his claims were barred by the statute of limitations or Heck, or (2) dismissing
his state law claims so that they could be adjudicated in state court. Because
Messier does not address any of the district court’s reasons for dismissing his
complaint, he has abandoned any relevant argument on appeal.
AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --