Corrine Jacox v. The Department of Defense , 291 F. App'x 318 ( 2008 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
SEPT 3, 2008
No. 08-10847
THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar
CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 06-00182-CV-HL-5
CORRINE JACOX,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, et al.,
Defendants,
ROBERT M. GATES,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia
_________________________
(September 3, 2008)
Before TJOFLAT, BLACK and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Corrine Jacox appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the
defendants in this employment discrimination case. After review of the record and
the parties’ briefs, we affirm for the reasons stated in the district court’s thorough
and well-reasoned opinion of February 14, 2008.
Additionally, we briefly address Jacox’s motion to compel discovery.1
Jacox states in her appellate brief that the defendants were “never made to fully
disclose . . . in spite of motions to compel . . . Defendants were allowed by the
District Judge to decide what was relevant and what they would disclose.” We
read this as referring to the district court’s denial of her motion to compel
discovery. We review the denial of such a motion for an abuse of discretion.
Holloman v. Mail-Well Corp., 443 F.3d 832, 837 (11th Cir. 2006). Jacox’s
motion to compel did not include a certification that Jacox had in good faith
conferred or attempted to confer with the defendants about their responses to her
requests for admission of facts prior to seeking court action as is required by
1
Although not specifically mentioned in Jacox’s notice of appeal, “[t]he appeal from a
final judgment draws in question all prior non-final orders and rulings which produced the
judgment.” Club Car, Inc. v. Club Car (Quebec) Import, Inc., 362 F.3d 775, 785 n.5 (11th Cir.
2004) (quoting Barfield v. Brierton, 883 F.2d 923, 930 (11th Cir. 1989)). Although Jacox’s
notice of appeal referred to the February 14, 2008 order granting summary judgment rather than
the February 15 final judgment, we construe pro se pleadings liberally. Tannenbaum v. United
States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998).
2
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1). Courts show leniency to pro se litigants,
however, pro se litigants are still required to conform to procedural rules, and the
court is not required to rewrite deficient pleadings. GJR Investments, Inc. v.
County of Escambia, Fla., 132 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir. 1998). Furthermore, her
motion to compel failed to identify particular problems with the defendants’
responses to her requests for admission of facts, nor does she identify any specific
shortcomings in the responses in her briefs to this court. The district court did not,
therefore, err in denying Jacox’s motion to compel discovery.
AFFIRMED.
3