David Leon Moreland v. Bank of New York Mellon (THE) , 669 F. App'x 971 ( 2016 )

Case: 15-13417 Date Filed: 10/21/2016 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-13417
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:14-cv-00112-JRH-RSB
DAVID LEON MORELAND,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON (THE), et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
________________________
(October 21, 2016)
Before WILSON, JORDAN, and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 15-13417 Date Filed: 10/21/2016 Page: 2 of 3
In state court, David L. Moreland sued to prevent Select Portfolio Servicing
from foreclosing on his property. After losing the lawsuit, Moreland, dissatisfied
with the result, sued again in federal district court, this time naming two additional
defendants and suing under both state and federal law. The district court dismissed
the claims against Select based on claim preclusion and dismissed the claims
against the remaining defendants for failure for state a claim. Moreland appeals
the dismissals. We affirm.
Moreland asserts a slew of arguments, only one of which disputes the
applicability of claim preclusion. He argues that the Glynn County Superior Court,
the Georgia court that dismissed his first lawsuit, lacked both subject matter
jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction. However, the Glynn County Superior Court
had subject matter jurisdiction because the lawsuit involved the foreclosure of
property in Glynn County, Georgia. See Ga. Const. Art. VI, § IV, ¶ I. Also, the
court correctly exercised personal jurisdiction over Select because Select, by
moving to dismiss Moreland’s complaint without challenging personal jurisdiction,
waived any challenge to personal jurisdiction. See Ga. Code § 9-11-12(b), (h).
Moreland’s defeat in the state lawsuit precludes him from pursuing in federal court
the claims against Select.
Moreland does not dispute the district court’s determination that his
complaint fails to state a claim against the remaining defendants. Instead he argues
2
Case: 15-13417 Date Filed: 10/21/2016 Page: 3 of 3
that the district court “unlawfully” denied his motion to amend, implying that the
district court denied him an opportunity to rectify the deficiency. A review of the
record reveals that the district court granted Moreland’s motion for leave to amend
but that he neglected to file an amended complaint. The complaint as it stands fails
to articulate a claim against either of the two additional defendants.
After conducting a de novo review of the district court’s grant of the
appellees’ motions to dismiss, see Glover v. Liggett Grp., Inc., 459 F.3d 1304,
1308 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam), and after liberally construing the pro se
appellant’s complaint, see Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263
(11th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (discussing the leniency afforded to a pro se
plaintiff), we affirm the district court’s decision to dismiss the complaint.
AFFIRMED. *
*
Moreland’s motion for leave to amend his complaint and his motion for an extension of
time to seek representation are DENIED.
3