Case Explained: Non-Argument Calendar PATRICK COMACK v. UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI (“U of M”) ANDRES M. KANNER, MD BONNIE E. LEVIN, PHD

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Filed: 2026-06-18 Docket: 1:24-cv-23446-DPG The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal without prejudice of Patrick Comack’s complaint. The court held that because the district court dismissed the complaint on two independent grounds—failure to state a claim and as an impermissible “shotgun pleading”—Comack was required to successfully challenge both grounds to obtain reversal. The court determined that Comack abandoned his challenge to the shotgun pleading dismissal by failing to adequately brief the issue; while he argued only that local rules did not impose page limits, he failed to address the district court’s actual reasoning that the complaint was a shotgun pleading because it contained multiple counts where each subsequent count adopted the allegations of all preceding counts. Under Eleventh Circuit precedent, an appellant who fails to plainly and prominently raise an issue with supporting arguments is deemed to have abandoned it, necessitating affirmation if any independent ground for the judgment remains unchallenged. Consequently, the district court’s judgment stands, leaving Comack’s complaint dismissed without prejudice. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.