Doretha Nichols v. Walmart, Inc.

── Doretha Nichols v. Walmart, Inc. ── Case No.: 25-11536 Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: March 31, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 25-11536 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 03/31/2026 Page: 1 of 9 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-11536 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ DORETHA NICHOLS, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus WALMART, INC., JIM C. WALTON, ALICE L. WALTON, S. ROBSON WALTON, JOHN T. WALTON ESTATE TRUST, et al., Defendants-Appellees. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 1:24-cv-00236-JRH-BKE ____________________ Before JORDAN, KIDD, and MARCUS, Circuit Judges. USCA11 Case: 25-11536 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 03/31/2026 Page: 2 of 9 2 Opinion of the Court 25-11536 PER CURIAM: Doretha Nichols appeals from the district court’s dismissal of her pro se amended complaint alleging negligence against the defendants (collectively “Walmart”). The instant case follows a previous case Nichols brought against Walmart, alleging similar facts, that was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction be- cause the amount in controversy did not exceed the required $75,000. In this appeal, Nichols argues that: (1) the district court erred in dismissing her claim again on subject matter jurisdiction grounds; (2) the district court erred when it failed to sanction Walmart; (3) the magistrate judge erred when he declined to recuse from her case; (4) the magistrate judge exceeded his statutory au- thority when he issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) without her consent; and (5) the district court failed to keep accu- rate records. After thorough review, we affirm. I. We review de novo a district court’s determination of whether it has subject matter jurisdiction. Gupta v. McGahey, 709 F.3d 1062, 1064–65 (11th Cir. 2013). We review the denial of a mo- tion for sanctions for abuse of discretion. Peer v. Lewis, 606 F.3d 1306, 1311 (11th Cir. 2010). We also review a judge’s decision not to recuse himself for abuse of discretion. Jenkins v. Anton, 922 F.3d 1257, 1271–72 (11th Cir. 2019). A district court abuses its discretion if it applies the law in an unreasonable manner, follows improper USCA11 Case: 25-11536 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 03/31/2026 Page: 3 of 9 25-11536 Opinion of the Court 3 procedures in making a decision, or makes clearly erroneous fac- tual findings. Silva v. Pro Transp. Inc., 898 F.3d 1335, 1339 (11th Cir. 2018). If the district court’s order rested on two or more independ- ent, alternative grounds, the appellant must challenge all of the grounds to succeed on appeal. Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 680 (11th Cir. 2014). When an appellant fails to chal- lenge properly on appeal one of the grounds on which the district court based its judgment, she is deemed to have abandoned any challenge of that ground, and the judgment is due to be affirmed. Id. We may affirm on any ground supported by the record, regard- less of whether that ground was relied upon or considered by the district court. Kernel Records Oy