Willie Bennett v. CitiMortgage, Inc., et al

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-10519
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:14-cv-02752-RWS
WILLIE BENNETT,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
CITIMORTGAGE, INC.,
SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,
VENDOR RESOURCE MANAGEMENT,
Defendants - Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(November 16, 2015)
Before JORDAN, JULIE CARNES and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 15-10519 Date Filed: 11/16/2015 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Willie Bennett,1 proceeding in forma pauperis, appeals the district court’s
dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) of his amended complaint for failure to
state a claim and for suing an immune defendant. Bennett argues that the district
court (1) erred in concluding that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs (VA) is
immune because Bennett brings this claim as a Bivens action2 and (2) erred in
concluding that CitiMortgage, Inc. (Citi) and Vendor Resource Management
(VRM) were not government actors because they acted as authorized agents of the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). After review,3 we affirm.
Neither the amended complaint nor Bennett’s objections to the magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation mention Bivens or state that Citi was an agent
of the VA. Because Bennett failed to raise these arguments before the district
court, we decline to address them for the first time on appeal. See Access Now,
Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1331 (11th Cir. 2004) (quotations omitted)
(“This Court has repeatedly held that an issue not raised in the district court and
raised for the first time in an appeal will not be considered by this court.”).
1 We note that Bennett was represented by counsel in the district court and on appeal.
2 See Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388
(1971).
3 We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim, Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d
1483, 1490 (11th Cir. 1997), and for sovereign immunity, Maughon v. Bibb Cty., 160 F.3d 658,
660 (11th Cir. 1998). We accept as true all allegations of fact in the amended complaint.
Mitchell, 112 F.3d at 1490.
Case: 15-10519 Date Filed: 11/16/2015 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Bennett’s argument that VRM is a government actor fails to respond to the
basis for the district court’s dismissal. The magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation, which the district court adopted, assumed arguendo that VRM
was a government actor and nevertheless concluded that Bennett failed to state a
claim on which relief could be granted. Because Bennett fails to challenge the
basis for the district court’s conclusion, he has abandoned any claim that the
district court erred in this regard. See Hamilton v. Southland Christian Sch., Inc.,
680 F.3d 1316, 1319 (11th Cir. 2012) (“A passing reference to an issue in a brief is
not enough, and the failure to make arguments and cite authorities in support of an
issue waives it.”).
AFFIRMED.
Case: 15-10519 Date Filed: 11/16/2015 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --