Carolyn Wright v. City of Atlanta

USCA11 Case: 24-11886 Document: 60-1 Date Filed: 01/28/2026 Page: 1 of 10

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 24-11886

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

CAROLYN WRIGHT,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CITY OF ATLANTA,

BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF GEORGIA,

BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF GEORGIA, INC.,

Defendants-Appellees.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

D.C. Docket No. 1:23-cv-00409-SCJ

____________________

Before NEWSOM, BRASHER, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

USCA11 Case: 24-11886 Document: 60-1 Date Filed: 01/28/2026 Page: 2 of 10

2 Opinion of the Court 24-11886

Carolyn Wright, proceeding pro se, appeals the dismissal of

her civil suit which brought claims under several statutes, including

42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Employee Retirement Income Security

Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1101, et seq. On appeal, she argues that

the district court judge erred by not recusing himself and by dis-

missing her case. After careful review, we affirm. 1

A. Recusal.

We first address Wright’s argument that the district court

judge should have recused himself. On appeal, Wright argues that

the district court “misrepresented facts” in its orders, erred in ruling

on her motion for a default judgment, and applied rules unequally

against her and the appellees. Based on these factual contentions,

Wright argues the district court had “bias” against her and “was

clearly in a rush to grant” dismissal to the appellees. Wright also

contends that the appellees engaged in misconduct by failing to

serve her with various documents related to the case.

We generally review the issue of recusal for abuse of discre-

tion. United States v. Berger, 375 F.3d 1223, 1227 (11th Cir. 2004).

That said, our review is arguably only for plain error because

Wright did not seek the court’s recusal until after judgment was

entered against her and she appealed. See Jenkins v. Anton, 922 F.3d

1257, 1272 (11th Cir. 2019) (“But because [the appellant] failed to

seek recusal of the district judge in the proceedings below, we

1 The parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of this case,

so we omit a lengthy recitation of the facts. Instead, we focus our discussion

on Wright’s arguments on appeal.

USCA11 Case: 24-11886 Document: 60-1 Date Filed: 01/28/2026 Page: 3 of 10

24-11886 Opinion of the Court 3

review [her] recusal request for plain error.”). Yet, even applying

the more favorable abuse of discretion standard, Wright has not

shown error.

Recusal is governed by two federal statutes, 28 U.S.C. §§ 144

and 455. Berger, 375 F.3d at 1227. Under the former, a judge must

recuse himself when a party files a timely and sufficient affidavit

explaining that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a

personal bias or prejudice either against her or in favor of any ad-

verse party. 28 U.S.C. § 144.

Section 455, on the other hand, designates two primary rea-

sons that a judge must recuse himself. United States v. Patti, 337

F.3d 1317, 1321 (11th Cir. 2003). First, under § 455(a), a judge

should recuse himself “when there is an appearance of impropri-

ety.” Id. The question of whether a judge should have recused

himself under § 455(a) “is whether an objective, disinterested, lay

observer fully informed of the facts underlying the grounds on

which recusal was sought would entertain a significant doubt

about the judge’s impartiality.” Id. (quoting Parker v. Connors Steel

Co., 855 F.2d 1510, 1524 (11th Cir. 1988)). Second, § 455(b) lists sev-

eral circumstances for when a judge should recuse himself, includ-

ing, in relevant part, “[w]here he has a personal bias or prejudice

concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary

facts concerning the proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(b). For the pur-

poses of this subsection, “a judge should recuse himself . . . when

any of the specific circumstances set forth in that subsection exist,

which show the fact of partiality.” Patti, 337 F.3d at 1321.

USCA11 Case: 24-11886 Document: 60-1 Date Filed: 01/28/2026 Page: 4 of 10

4 Opinion of the Court 24-11886

“[J]udicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis

for a bias or partiality motion.” Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540,

555 (1994). Instead, “bias ‘must stem from extrajudicial sources,

unless the judge’s acts demonstrate such pervasive bias and preju-

dice that it unfairly prejudices one of the parties.’” Berger, 375 F.3d

at 1227 (quoting United States v. Bailey, 175 F.3d 966, 968 (11th Cir.

1999)). “[A]ny doubts must be resolved in favor of recusal.” In re

Moody, 755 F.3d 891, 895 (11th Cir. 2014) (quoting Patti, 337 F.3d at

1321). However, “a judge, having been assigned to a case, should

not recuse himself on unsupported, irrational, or highly tenuous

speculation.” Id. (quoting United States v. Greenough, 782 F.2d 1556,

1558 (11th Cir. 1986)).

Under the circumstances, Wright has not shown that the dis-

trict court abused its discretion because we have no “significant

doubt about the judge’s impartiality.” Patti, 337 F.3d at 1321; see

also Parker, 855 F.2d at 1524. Contrary to Wright’s contentions, the

district court applied applicable service rules evenhandedly against

each party. Moreover, the district court did not deny Wright an

opportunity to be heard on any issue; it explained the relevant rules

and then ultimately dismissed her claims based on established

pleading standards. Our review of the district court’s rulings do

not show bias that would justify recusal. In any event, Wright’s

arguments about recusal are solely about the district court’s rulings

in this case and “judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a

valid basis for a bias or partiality motion.” Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555.

USCA11 Case: 24-11886 Document: 60-1 Date Filed: 01/28/2026 Page: 5 of 10

24-11886 Opinion of the Court 5

For these reasons, we reject Wright’s arguments on this issue and

affirm.2

B. The District Court Properly Dismissed Wright’s Claims.

Next, we address the dismissal of Wright’s claims. As a gen-

eral matter, we review a district court’s dismissal for failure to state

a claim de novo. See Watts v. Joggers Run Prop. Owners Ass’n, Inc., 133

F.4th 1032, 1038–39 (11th Cir. 2025). In doing so, we take the alle-

gations in the operative pleading as true and construe them in the

light most favorable to the plaintiff. Id. Dismissal is appropriate

only when a plaintiff fails to plead factual content sufficient to cre-

ate a reasonable inference that the defendant is liable as a matter of

law. See id.; Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

Wright’s filings present numerous legal theories, but the fac-

tual allegations underlying the suit are as follows.3 The City of

2 We also do not discern any misconduct on the part of appellees. Even as-

suming the appellees failed, as Wright alleges, to follow applicable service

rules, she has not shown error in the dismissal of her suit, so any error relating

to service is harmless on these facts. See Equal Emp’t Opportunity Comm’n v.

STME, LLC, 938 F.3d 1305, 1322–23 (11th Cir. 2019) (applying harmless error

in the civil context). For the same reason, any error in the district court’s de-

nial of Wright’s requests for a default judgment do not create reversible error

because the underlying complaint failed to state a claim. See Chudasama v.

Mazda Motor Corp., 123 F.3d 1353, 1370 n.41 (11th Cir. 1997) (“[A] default judg-

ment cannot stand on a complaint that fails to state a claim.”).

3 Wright filed two documents nearly simultaneously that were titled amended

complaints. The district court construed these documents together as the op-

erative complaint, and we adopt the same approach, given our policy of liber-

ally construing the filings of pro se parties. United States v. Webb, 565 F.3d 789,

792 (11th Cir. 2009); Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir.

USCA11 Case: 24-11886 Document: 60-1 Date Filed: 01/28/2026 Page: 6 of 10

6 Opinion of the Court 24-11886

Atlanta (“the City”) offered Wright a job as a court clerk. Wright

accepted the job and completed the onboarding process, which in-

volved submitting an I-9 form and an employment eligibility veri-

fication form to the City. About a month later, the City rescinded

Wright’s offer because it meant to hire another woman, also

named Carolyn Wright, instead of Wright. After her offer was re-

scinded, Wright noticed that her Blue Cross insurance account

stated that she was a City employee and her personal identifying

information had been merged with the data of the other Carolyn

Wright and exposed to that third party.

Wright argued that these facts supported various causes of

actions. Most prominently, Wright brought a claim under § 1983

against the City of Atlanta based on the rescinded job offer. She

also brought ERISA claims against Blue Cross for negligence and

breach of fiduciary duty, in which she argued that Blue Cross and

the City had used her information to set up a healthcare account

without authorization, which “merged” her information with the

other individual named Carolyn Wright. Third, she brought

claims against Blue Cross for breaching her data, invading her pri-

vacy, and committing identity theft, and for allowing third parties

to view her data without her consent, all in violation of the Health

Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”), 42 U.S.C.

1998). See also Andrews v. United States, 373 U.S. 334, 338 (1963) (“[A]djudica-

tion upon the underlying merits of claims is not hampered by reliance upon

the titles petitioners put upon their documents.” (citation omitted)). As dis-

cussed above, we find no merit to any of Wright’s claims, even after consider-

ing all the allegations together.

USCA11 Case: 24-11886 Document: 60-1 Date Filed: 01/28/2026 Page: 7 of 10

24-11886 Opinion of the Court 7

§§ 1320d, et seq., and the Immigration Reform and Control Act of

1986 (“IRCA”), 26 U.S.C. § 7529.

Even though Wright makes some arguments on appeal

about the dismissal of her claims, we conclude that she has aban-

doned any challenge to the district court’s dismissal of her ERISA,

IRCA, and HIPAA claims. A party can abandon an issue by failing

to challenge it on appeal. See Irwin v. Hawk, 40 F.3d 347, 347 n.1

(11th Cir. 1994). An issue can also be abandoned where it is pre-

sented in briefing only in “passing references” or “in a perfunctory

manner without supporting arguments and authority.” Sapuppo v.

Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 681 (11th Cir. 2014); see also

Singh v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 561 F.3d 1275, 1278 (11th Cir. 2009) (ex-

plaining that “simply stating that an issue exists, without further

argument or discussion, constitutes abandonment of that issue”).

Absent “exceptional” circumstances, we do not consider issues that

have been abandoned. Access Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co., 385 F.3d

1324, 1332 (11th Cir. 2004).

Construing Wright’s initial brief on appeal liberally, her

ERISA claim has been abandoned. The district court explained that

ERISA provides a private cause of action “for individual plan bene-

ficiaries to pursue ‘appropriate equitable relief,’” but that Wright’s

healthcare plan was “exempt from ERISA’s statutory scheme.”

Wright v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Georgia, No. 1:23-cv-00409, 2024

WL 2975757, at *4 (N.D. Ga. May 16, 2024) (quoting Varity Corp. v.

Howe, 516 U.S. 486, 510 (1996)). In her brief, Wright does not chal-

lenge those conclusions, discuss ERISA, nor present any authority

USCA11 Case: 24-11886 Document: 60-1 Date Filed: 01/28/2026 Page: 8 of 10

8 Opinion of the Court 24-11886

suggesting that the district court’s ruling was in error. Sapuppo,

739 F.3d at 681; Singh, 561 F.3d at 1278. Next, the district court

found that Wright failed to state a claim under HIPAA because that

statute does not provide a private cause of action. Wright, 2024 WL

2975757, at 4 n.4. Wright does not discuss HIPAA nor argue that

it provides her a cause of action, abandoning any challenge to the

district court’s conclusion on this front as well. Sapuppo, 739 F.3d

at 681; Singh, 561 F.3d at 1278.

On IRCA, the district court also concluded that, while

Wright had cited the statute, her allegations were “insufficient to

meet the federal pleading requirements.” Wright v. City of Atlanta,

No. 1:23-cv-00409, 2024 WL 6951601, at 5 n.4 (N.D. Ga. Apr. 16,

2024). Wright does not challenge this conclusion—nor cite IRCA

at all—on appeal. Seeing no “exceptional” circumstances that

would cause us to address these claims despite Wright’s abandon-

ment, we affirm. Access Now, 385 F.3d at 1332. The district court

also concluded that Wright had attempted to raise a Section 1981

claim in her briefing but that the claim failed because she had not

alleged that any of the defendants’ behavior was based on race.

Wright, 2024 WL 2975757, at *3. Wright does not argue this con-

clusion was error on appeal, so we affirm on this issue as well. 4

4 Wright raises several arguments in her reply brief which address claims

which we have found abandoned. Yet, our precedent is clear that parties, even

pro se parties, may not raise arguments for the first time in a reply brief. See

Big Top Koolers, Inc. v. Circus-Man Snacks, Inc., 528 F.3d 839, 844 (11th Cir. 2008);

Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008). For that reason, we do

not discuss these new arguments further.

USCA11 Case: 24-11886 Document: 60-1 Date Filed: 01/28/2026 Page: 9 of 10

24-11886 Opinion of the Court 9

In light of these conclusions, we turn to Wright’s remaining

claim, which was brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 5 Wright men-

tions this claim in her initial brief, and cites some relevant prece-

dent on Section 1983, so we consider the issue at least arguably pre-

served. However, like the district court, we conclude Wright’s

§ 1983 claim fails to state a claim.

Section 1983 provides a cause of action against any “person

who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or

usage . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the

United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the

deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the

Constitution and laws.” 42 U.S.C. § 1983. While municipalities,

like the City, qualify as “persons” under § 1983, they “cannot be

held vicariously liable under § 1983 for constitutional violations

5 There are two other types of claims we address briefly on the merits. First,

while Wright’s brief suggests that the appellees violated 18 U.S.C. § 1028A,

that statute is a criminal statute that does not provide a civil cause of action.

See Hanna v. Home Ins. Co., 281 F.2d 298, 303 (5th Cir. 1960) (“The sections of

Title 18 may be disregarded in this suit. They are criminal in nature and pro-

vide no civil remedies.”); see also Bonner v. City of Prichard, Ala., 661 F.2d 1206,

1210 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc) (holding that decisions issued by the former

Fifth Circuit prior to October 1, 1981, are binding upon this Court). Second,

the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Wright’s

claims which sounded in state law. We see no abuse of discretion in that de-

cision, see Parker v. Scrap Metal Processors, Inc., 468 F.3d 733, 738 (11th Cir. 2006)

(laying out standard of review), given that the district court dismissed all of

Wright’s federal claims on the merits, see Dynes v. Army Air Force Exch. Serv.,

720 F.2d 1495, 1499 (11th Cir. 1983) (explaining that dismissals without preju-

dice are rarely abuses of discretion because parties can re-file their complaints).

USCA11 Case: 24-11886 Document: 60-1 Date Filed: 01/28/2026 Page: 10 of 10

10 Opinion of the Court 24-11886

committed by its officers.” Hoefling v. City of Miami, 811 F.3d 1271,

1279 (11th Cir. 2016) (citing Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S.

658, 693–94 (1978)). Instead, a plaintiff must show that a “City had

a policy, custom, or practice” that caused the deprivation of her

constitutional rights. Id.

Even assuming that Wright has alleged a constitutional vio-

lation, we discern no error in the dismissal of Wright’s § 1983 claim

against the City. Wright did not argue—nor plead facts that sug-

gest—that the City had a “policy, custom, or practice” in place that

led to her violation. See id. As the district court explained, Wright’s

complaint did not identify any City of Atlanta “custom or policy

that suggests it regularly failed to properly verify information or

otherwise handle its hiring process,” nor that any City of Atlanta

official acquiesced or adopted any decision relating to the facts in

Wright’s case. Wright, 2024 WL 6951601, at *5; see also Hoefling,

811 F.3d at 1279. While Wright did not have to identify the specific

policymakers in her complaint, she “needed to . . . allege a policy,

practice, or custom of the City” which led to the harm she suffered.

Hoefling, 811 F.3d at 1280. Because her complaint failed to do so,

we affirm.

For these reasons, we discern no reversible error in the dis-

trict court’s orders. Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.