Jesse Harris v. Universal Music Group, et al.

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 20-13382
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:20-cv-22177-UU
JESSE HARRIS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
UNIVERSAL MUSIC GROUP,
SONY MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT,
LIONSGATE ENTERTAINMENT,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(April 28, 2021)
Before NEWSOM, GRANT, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
USCA11 Case: 20-13382 Date Filed: 04/28/2021 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Jesse Harris, proceeding pro se, sued Sony Music Entertainment, Lionsgate
Entertainment, and Universal Music Group, alleging that they used his Facebook
posts without his authorization to create a music album, film, and several music
videos. The district court dismissed his initial complaint as a shotgun pleading and
provided instructions on how to file an amended complaint that complied with
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 10. Harris largely ignored those
instructions and filed a similarly deficient amended complaint. Meanwhile, the
clerk entered default against Sony. After the defendants appeared, the district
court vacated the clerk’s entry of default and dismissed Harris’s amended
complaint with prejudice.
Harris appeals and has filed a two-page brief that contends that the district
court erred by entering both orders. He claims, without legal citation, that we
should reverse the order vacating the entry of default because, first, the district
court granted Sony’s motion without waiting for his opposition, and second, the
district court did not promptly sign off on his motion for entry of default judgment.
He also suggests that the district court should not have dismissed his amended
complaint because he “did not fail to state a claim,” and indeed included a
“perfectly legal and cognizable claim against the defendants.” But that is the
entirety of his argument—he doesn’t explain what his claim is or what facts
USCA11 Case: 20-13382 Date Filed: 04/28/2021 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

3
supported it, nor does he cite any legal authority (not even a standard of review) to
back up his conclusory assertions.
Though we read briefs filed by pro se litigants liberally, we still require them
to brief issues on appeal and make more than a passing reference to errors without
legal support. Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008);
Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Fla. v. Cypress, 814 F.3d 1202, 1211 (11th Cir.
2015). An “appellant’s simply stating that an issue exists, without further
argument or discussion, constitutes abandonment of that issue and precludes our
considering the issue on appeal.” United States v. Delva, 922 F.3d 1228, 1243 n.4
(11th Cir. 2019) (quotation omitted); see also Timson, 518 F.3d at 874 (finding a
pro se litigant’s claims abandoned).
Here, that’s all Harris did. He made “passing references” to the district
court’s errors below and treated them in a “perfunctory manner without supporting
arguments and authority.” Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678,
681 (11th Cir. 2014). Because he gives us no legal basis to find that the district
court erred, he has abandoned these arguments on appeal. Id. The district court’s
orders are therefore affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
USCA11 Case: 20-13382 Date Filed: 04/28/2021 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --