[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No

. 17

- 10828 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D

. C

. Docket No

. 0:17

- cv - 60173

- BB

JOHN W

. HARRIS, Plaintiff

- Appellant,

versus SUNSHINE HEALTH AGENCY, Dr

. Ernest Bertha, Director, AGENCY FOR HEALTH CA RE ADMINISTRATION, Infectious Disease Pharmacist, Defendants

- Appellees

.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Distr ict of Florida

________________________ ( September 26, 2017 ) Before ED CARNES , Chief Judge, JORDAN, and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM:

Case: 17-10828 Date Filed: 09/26/2017 Page: 1 of 32 John Harris, a non - prisoner litigant proceeding pro se , filed suit against his healthcare providers, claiming that they violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by withholding treatment for his liver condition. The district court construed his claim s as arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and dismissed his complaint sua sponte for failure to state a claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). It concluded that, among other things, Harris failed to allege facts supporting a finding that his healthcare providers are state actors. This is Harris’ appeal. We review de novo the distric t court’s dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)

. Evans v

. Ga. Reg’l Hosp

. , 850 F

. 3d 1248, 1253 (11th Cir

. 2017)

. To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain facts that , accepted as true, support a reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged

. Ashcroft v

. Iqbal , 556 U

. S . 662, 678 , 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). We construe liberally p lead ings filed by pro se litigants. Evans , 850 F .3d at 125 3

. The district court pro perly dismissed Harris’ § 1983 claim because he failed to allege facts supporting a reasonable inference of state action. T o state a claim
for relief under § 1983, Harris must allege facts showing that the conduct complained of was committed “ by a person acting under color of state law

. ” Patrick v. Floyd Med. Ctr. , 201 F

. 3d 1313, 1315 (11th Cir

. 2000) . That, in turn, requires that “ the party charged with the deprivation is a person who may fairly be characterized as a state actor. ” Id.

Case: 17-10828 Date Filed: 09/26/2017 Page: 2 of 33 Harris did not al lege in his complain t that any of the defendants are state
actors

. Harris now contends that the defendants are state actors because the state of Florida regulates medical practitioners

. That argument comes too late. See Blue Martini Kendall, LLC v. Miami Dade County , 816 F.3d 1343, 1349 (11th Cir. 2016) (“[A]n issue not raised in the district court and raised for the first time in an appeal will not be considered by this court

. ”) (internal quotation marks omitted). It is also meritl ess : the fact that a party is subject to state regulation “ does not by itself convert its action into that of the State.” Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan , 526 U.S. 40, 52, 119 S.Ct. 977, 986 (1999). The district court did not err by declining to ado pt a rule that would convert into state action the conduct of doctors, lawyers, and anyone else whose trade the State regulates. 1
AFFIRMED .

1 To the extent Harris contend s that the district court erred by denying his moti on to proceed in forma pauperis , his complaint ’s dismissal mooted that motion . And if Harris meant to argue that the district court erred in denying him leave to amend , that ar gument is abandoned because he mentioned it only in an incomplete sentence, unsupported by any legal or factual argument. See Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co. , 739 F.3d 678, 681 (11th Cir. 2014) (“We have long held that an appellant abandons a claim when he either makes only passing references to it or raises it in a perfunctory manner without supporting arguments and authority

. ”).

Case: 17-10828 Date Filed: 09/26/2017 Page: 3 of 3