Preston Jermaine Lewis v. Thomas Joseph Leonard, 17-11291

In 2013 Lewis (African American) sued PSC official Thomas Leonard under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging race discrimination after Leonard removed him from campus following an investigation; the district court dismissed that suit under Rule 12(b)(6) on qualified immunity grounds and Lewis did not appeal.
In May 2015 Lewis filed a second § 1983 suit against Leonard raising race-discrimination and due-process claims based on the same 2013 incident.
During discovery in the second action Lewis failed to appear for his noticed deposition; his counsel withdrew and Lewis proceeded pro se.
The magistrate judge granted Leonard’s Rule 37 motion for sanctions, finding Lewis had no substantial justification for not attending, and ordered Lewis to pay $4,730 in attorney’s fees; Lewis did not contest the fee amount below.
Leonard moved for summary judgment in the second suit asserting res judicata; the magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment and the district court adopted the R&R. Lewis’s appellate brief argued only the merits and did not challenge the res judicata ruling.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Lewis’s second § 1983 suit is barred by res judicata	Lewis argued merits (race/discrimination, due process) but did not contest claim preclusion	The 2013 dismissal was a final judgment on the merits, same parties and same cause of action; res judicata bars relitigation	Court: Res judicata applies; summary judgment for Leonard affirmed
Whether the district court abused its discretion in awarding Rule 37 sanctions ($4,730)	Lewis said he refused to attend because interrogatories were unanswered and counsel disagreed; also noted defendant’s attorney did not appear at the deposition site	Leonard argued Lewis failed to attend a properly noticed deposition without substantial justification; travel issue caused by Lewis’s last-minute refusal	Court: No abuse of discretion; sanctions upheld
Whether the amount of the fee award was improper	Lewis claimed financial burden but did not challenge fee amount below or in appeal	Leonard relied on unchallenged fee request submitted after sanctions order	Court: Lewis waived challenge to amount by failing to contest it below
Whether pro se status excuses failure to present res judicata argument on appeal	Lewis proceeded pro se on appeal and raised only merits	Leonard relied on abandonment rule for unbriefed issues	Court: Pro se briefs are construed liberally but abandonment applies; Lewis abandoned res judicata issue

Griswold v. County of Hillsborough, 598 F.3d 1289 (11th Cir. 2010) (elements of claim preclusion)
Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870 (11th Cir. 2008) (pro se litigant who fails to brief an issue abandons it on appeal)
Federated Dep't Stores, Inc. v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394 (U.S. 1981) (dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is a judgment on the merits)
NAACP v. Hunt, 891 F.2d 1555 (11th Cir. 1990) (same principle regarding Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal)
Devaney v. Continental American Insurance Co., 989 F.2d 1154 (11th Cir. 1993) (abuse-of-discretion standard for Rule 37 sanctions)
Access Now, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2004) (issues not raised below are waived on appeal)