Renee Bell v. U.S. Bank National Association, et al

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________

No. 19-10568
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________

D.C. Docket No. 6:18-cv-01826-CEM-GJK

RENEE BELL,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
Successor by Merger/Leader Mortgage (US Bancorp),
RICHARD K. DAVIS,
MARK G. RUNKER,
ANDREW CECERE,
FLORIDA HIGHWAY PATROL,

Defendants-Appellees.
________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(February 7, 2020)
Case: 19-10568 Date Filed: 02/07/2020 Page: 1 of 3

2
Before WILSON, NEWSOM, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
Renee Bell, proceeding pro se, appeals the dismissal of her complaint with
prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) alleging constitutional violations by the
U.S. Bank National Association, the Oaks at Powers Park Homeowners
Association, the Florida Highway Patrol, and several individuals. Among other
things, Bell appears to contend that U.S. Bank conspired with the other defendants
to fraudulently foreclose on her property and prevent her from filing for
bankruptcy. On appeal, she asserts that the district court violated her constitutional
rights by dismissing her complaint and that the court shouldn’t have considered her
complaint frivolous because decisive facts may not have emerged until discovery
or trial.
1

If a party fails to object to the findings or recommendations contained in an
report and recommendation (R&R) after being informed of the time period for
objecting and the consequences on appeal for failing to object, that party waives
the right to challenge the unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions on appeal.
11th Cir. R. 3-1. Furthermore, if a pro se litigant fails to address an issue in her
opening brief, that issue is deemed abandoned. Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870,

1
The dismissal of a complaint under § 1915(e) as frivolous is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
Bilal v. Driver, 251 F.3d 1346, 1348–49 (11th Cir. 2001).

Case: 19-10568 Date Filed: 02/07/2020 Page: 2 of 3

3
874 (11th Cir. 2008). Here, Bell waived her right to challenge the district court’s
factual and legal conclusions because she didn’t object to the substance of the
R&R. She also abandoned any argument that the district court erred in dismissing
her complaint with prejudice because she did not argue that issue in her brief.
Additionally, we have held that a district court doesn’t violate due process in
dismissing a complaint under § 1915(e) where the litigant is given an opportunity
to object to the R&R and the district court reviews the R&R de novo. Vanderberg
v. Donaldson, 259 F.3d 1321, 1324 (11th Cir. 2001). So, to the extent that Bell
argues that the dismissal violated due process, her argument fails because she was
given an opportunity to object to the R&R, which the court reviewed de novo.
Finally, motions to dismiss based on a facial challenge to the complaint
should be resolved before discovery begins. Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp.,
123 F.3d 1353, 1367 (11th Cir. 1997). Therefore, to the extent that Bell asserts that
she couldn’t file a proper complaint without discovery, the district court
determined that her claims were facially frivolous and, therefore, properly
dismissed the matter before discovery.
AFFIRMED.
Case: 19-10568 Date Filed: 02/07/2020 Page: 3 of 3