Robert Walker v. Brett Michael Waronicki

── Robert Walker v. Brett Michael Waronicki ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: April 16, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 25-11213 Document: 62-1 Date Filed: 04/16/2026 Page: 1 of 11 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-11213 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ ROBERT WALKER, individually and on behalf of himself, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus BRETT MICHAEL WARONICKI, in his individual capacity, JANET CARNEY CROOM, in her individual capacity, BARBARA W. BRONIS, in her individual capacity, HONORABLE JEFFREY T. KUNTZ, in his individual capacity, HONORABLE SPENCER D LEVINE, in his individual capacity, et al., Defendants-Appellees. USCA11 Case: 25-11213 Document: 62-1 Date Filed: 04/16/2026 Page: 2 of 11 2 Opinion of the Court 25-11213 ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 2:24-cv-14353-KMM ____________________ Before ABUDU, KIDD, and WILSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Robert Walker, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his civil suit, which raised claims against a law firm— Hinden, McLean, & Arbeiter, P.A. (“Hinden”)—seven Florida state court judges, the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeals, and the Florida Bar. After careful review, we affirm, but we remand for the limited purpose of clarifying that the jurisdictional dismissals were entered without prejudice. We write only for the parties, so we omit a lengthy recitation of the facts. I. STANDARDS OF REVIEW Summary disposition is appropriate in situations where “the position of one of the parties is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case, or where, as is more frequently the case, the appeal is frivo- lous.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). 1 1 In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir.1981) (en banc), this Court adopted as binding precedent all decisions, like Groendyke Transport, which were issued by the former Fifth Circuit prior to close of business on September 30, 1981. USCA11 Case: 25-11213 Document: 62-1 Date Filed: 04/16/2026 Page: 3 of 11 25-11213 Opinion of the Court 3 We review the dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim de novo. Watts v. Joggers Run Prop. Owners Ass’n, Inc., 133 F.4th 1032, 1038–39 (11th Cir. 2025). We review issues regarding recusal only for abuse of discretion. United States v. Berger, 375 F.3d 1223, 1227 (11th Cir. 2004). The abuse of discretion standard is deferen- tial; it “allows for a ‘range of choice for the district court,’ as long as that choice is not a ‘clear error of judgment.’” United States v. Beaufils, 160 F.4th 1147, 1163 (11th Cir. 2025) (quoting Rasbury v. IRS (In re Rasbury), 24 F.3d 159, 168 (11th Cir. 1994)). We construe pro se pleadings and briefs liberally. Wright v. Newsome, 795 F.