Gabriel Gonzalez v. Kendes Archer, 20-13280

Pro se plaintiff Gabriel Gonzalez sued federal employees alleging a Bivens deliberate-indifference claim; the district court granted summary judgment for the defendants.
Gonzalez filed objections to the summary-judgment order belatedly; the district court treated that filing as a post-judgment Rule 60(b) motion and denied relief.
Gonzalez appealed the denial of the Rule 60(b) motion; the appeal is timely only as to that denial, not the underlying summary-judgment order.
Defendants moved for summary affirmance and to stay the briefing schedule; the Eleventh Circuit considered summary disposition appropriate.
The Eleventh Circuit found Gonzalez abandoned any challenge to the district court’s denial by failing to brief it, and held the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Rule 60(b) motion because Gonzalez merely re‑litigated prior arguments.
The court granted defendants’ motion for summary affirmance and denied the motion to stay as moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness/appealability of the underlying summary-judgment order	Gonzalez contended his objections preserved appellate review	Defendants argued the objections were untimely and did not toll the appeal period	Notice was untimely as to the underlying judgment; only the Rule 60(b) denial was timely and reviewable
Whether Gonzalez preserved/challenged the district court’s denial of his objections	Gonzalez reiterated merits of summary judgment	Defendants argued Gonzalez failed to brief an attack on the denial (abandonment)	Gonzalez abandoned the challenge by not raising arguments on appeal
Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the construed Rule 60(b) motion	Gonzalez sought relief but largely re-litigated prior summary-judgment arguments	Defendants argued the motion advanced no new grounds and was improper re-litigation	No abuse of discretion; Rule 60(b) denial affirmed
Review of the merits of the underlying Bivens deliberate-indifference claim	Gonzalez pressed the merits of the Bivens claim on appeal	Defendants contended the merits are not before the court due to untimeliness and abandonment	Underlying summary-judgment merits are not reviewed on this appeal; summary affirmance entered

Bivens v. Six Unnamed Fed. Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (establishing implied cause of action against federal officers for constitutional violations)
Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158 (5th Cir. 1969) (standards for summary disposition of appeals)
Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678 (11th Cir. 2014) (failure to brief an issue on appeal constitutes abandonment)
Toole v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 235 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir. 2000) (standard of review for Rule 60(b) denials)
Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr. of Ill., 434 U.S. 257 (1978) (appeal from denial of postjudgment relief does not open review of underlying untimely judgment)
Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir. 1998) (pro se pleadings are liberally construed but must comply with procedural rules)
Albra v. Advan, Inc., 490 F.3d 826 (11th Cir. 2007) (pro se litigants remain bound by procedural requirements)
Campbell v. Air Jamaica Ltd., 760 F.3d 1165 (11th Cir. 2014) (district court not required to rewrite deficient pleadings)