USCA11 Case: 20-13167 Date Filed: 01/11/2021 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 20-13167
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:19-cv-02562-VMC-SPF
RONALD SATISH EMRIT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
UNIVERSAL MUSIC GROUP,
ISLAND DEF JAM GROUP,
RICK ROSS,
Defendants-Appellees,
ESTATE OF SHAKIR STEWART,
Defendant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(January 11, 2021)
USCA11 Case: 20-13167 Date Filed: 01/11/2021 Page: 2 of 3
Before WILSON, ROSENBAUM, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Ronald Emrit, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his
copyright infringement claims against Universal Music Group (UMG), Def Jam
Group, the Estate of Shakir Stewart, and Rick Ross. The district court dismissed
Emrit’s claims against UMG for lack of personal jurisdiction and dismissed the
remainder of the complaint with prejudice as an impermissible shotgun pleading.
We review a district court’s dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction de novo.
Licciardello v. Lovelady,
544 F.3d 1280, 1283 (11th Cir. 2008). We review a
dismissal of a complaint on shotgun pleading grounds for an abuse of discretion.
Weiland v. Palm Beach Cty. Sheriff’s Office,
792 F.3d 1313, 1320 (11th Cir. 2015).
We liberally construe pro se pleadings and hold them to a less stringent
standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys. Erickson v. Pardus,
551 U.S. 89, 94
(2007). Still, “issues not briefed on appeal by a pro se litigant are deemed
abandoned.” Timson v. Sampson,
518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008). An appellant
fails to adequately brief a claim when he does not plainly and prominently raise it,
by “mak[ing] only passing references to it or rais[ing] it in a perfunctory manner
without supporting arguments and authority.” Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co.,
739 F.3d 678, 681 (11th Cir. 2014).
2
USCA11 Case: 20-13167 Date Filed: 01/11/2021 Page: 3 of 3
Here, Emrit has abandoned any challenge to the district court’s rulings. Emrit
makes two passing comments about personal jurisdiction—both faulting the district
court for addressing personal jurisdiction before reaching the merits of his claim.
But nowhere does Emrit argue that the district court had personal jurisdiction over
UMG. He has thus abandoned any argument that the district court erred in dismissing
the claims against UMG because it lacked personal jurisdiction over UMG.
Likewise, Emrit fails to mention even once the district court’s determination that his
complaint was an impermissible shotgun pleading. He has therefore also abandoned
any argument that the district court impermissibly dismissed his other claims with
prejudice because his complaint was a shotgun pleading. Because Emrit has not
challenged any of the grounds on which the district court based its dismissal, we
AFFIRM.
3
