[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-13517

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

HENRY MCCONE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

EXELA TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 

EXELA ENTERPRISE SOLUTIONS, INC., 

Defendants-Appellees.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 6:21-cv-00912-CEM-DCI

USCA11 Case: 23-13517 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 05/08/2024 Page: 1 of 4
2 Opinion of the Court 23-13517

____________________

Before JORDAN, NEWSOM, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Henry McCone, proceeding pro se, appeals the district 

court’s denial of his Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment and for reconsideration.1 

Where appropriate, we review the district court’s denial of 

a Rule 59(e) motion for an abuse of discretion. Lambert v. Fulton 

Cnty., Ga., 253 F.3d 588, 598 (11th Cir. 2001). Under Rule 59, a 

party may ask a district court to reconsider an earlier ruling. See 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). A Rule 59(e) motion must be based upon 

“newly-discovered evidence or manifest errors of law or fact.” Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007) (quotation marks 

omitted). It may not be used to relitigate old matters or raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the 

initial entry of judgment. Id.

While pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard 

than pleadings drafted by attorneys and will be liberally construed, 

1 On March 12, 2024, we dismissed the portion of McCone’s appeal challenging 

the district court’s order and final judgment granting summary judgment 

against him for lack of jurisdiction because his motion to reconsider was filed 

more than 28 days after the final order and judgment was entered. Thus, the 

motion did not toll the 30-day statutory time limit for filing a notice of appeal. 

We therefore proceed with his appeal only insofar as it relates to the denial of 

his motion for reconsideration, which was timely. 

USCA11 Case: 23-13517 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 05/08/2024 Page: 2 of 4
23-13517 Opinion of the Court 3

a court may not “serve as de facto counsel for a party [or] rewrite an 

otherwise deficient pleading in order to sustain an action.” Campbell v. Air Jam. Ltd., 760 F.3d 1165, 1168 69 (11th Cir. 2014). “[I]ssues 

not briefed on appeal by a pro se litigant are deemed abandoned.” 

Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008). An appellant 

fails to adequately brief a claim when he does not “plainly and 

prominently raise it,” such as by making only passing references to 

the court’s holding without advancing any arguments or citing any 

authorities to establish that they were error. Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 681 (11th Cir. 2014) (quotation marks 

omitted). A party abandons a claim by: (1) making only passing 

reference to it, (2) raising it in a perfunctory manner without supporting arguments and authority, (3) referring to it only in the 

“statement of the case” or “summary of the argument,” or (4) the 

references to the issue are mere background to the appellant’s main 

arguments. Id. at 681-82.

Here, McCone has abandoned any purported challenge to 

the district court’s denial of his motion to alter or amend the judgment and for reconsideration by failing to make any meaningful 

argument as to the motion on appeal. Timson, 518 F.3d at 874. 

McCone’s brief is essentially a disagreement with the district 

court’s determination as to the merits of his alleged discrimination 

and retaliation claims, which go to the final order and judgment of 

his case, and over which we lack jurisdiction and accordingly have

already dismissed. While the first issue asserted in McCone’s 

“statement of the issues” section of his brief is whether the district 

court abused its discretion in denying his motion, that is the only 

USCA11 Case: 23-13517 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 05/08/2024 Page: 3 of 4
4 Opinion of the Court 23-13517

place in his brief the motion or the abuse of discretion standard are 

so much as mentioned. Such is not enough to preserve an argument on appeal. See Sapuppo, 739 F.3d at 681-82.

AFFIRMED.2

2 McCone’s motion for reconsideration of our March 12, 2024, order sua sponte

dismissing his appeal, in part, for lack of jurisdiction is also DENIED. See Fed. 

R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A); Advanced Bodycare Sols., LLC v. Thione Int’l, Inc., 615 F.3d 

1352, 1359 n.15 (11th Cir. 2010).

USCA11 Case: 23-13517 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 05/08/2024 Page: 4 of 4