Case Name: Sharon BRIDGEWATER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEKALB COUNTY, by and through Vernon JONES, Chief, N.T. Martinelli, Executive Officer; Chief of Police for the DeKalb County Police Department, C. Schreiner, Police Officer; #2491; Individually and in her official capacity as the arresting Officer, Detective George, individually and in his/her official capacity as Detective., Lieutenant Hamilton, Individually and in her/his official capacity as Lieutenant, Does 1 Through 50, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-06-16
Citations: 430 F. App'x 837
Docket Number: No. 10-15276
Parties: Sharon BRIDGEWATER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEKALB COUNTY, by and through Vernon JONES, Chief, N.T. Martinelli, Executive Officer; Chief of Police for the DeKalb County Police Department, C. Schreiner, Police Officer; #2491; Individually and in her official capacity as the arresting Officer, Detective George, individually and in his/her official capacity as Detective., Lieutenant Hamilton, Individually and in her/his official capacity as Lieutenant, Does 1 Through 50, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 430
Pages: 837–838

Head Matter:
Sharon BRIDGEWATER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEKALB COUNTY, by and through Vernon JONES, Chief, N.T. Martinelli, Executive Officer; Chief of Police for the DeKalb County Police Department, C. Schreiner, Police Officer; #2491; Individually and in her official capacity as the arresting Officer, Detective George, individually and in his/her official capacity as Detective., Lieutenant Hamilton, Individually and in her/his official capacity as Lieutenant, Does 1 Through 50, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 10-15276
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
June 16, 2011.
Sharon Bridgewater, San Francisco, CA, pro se.
Before CARNES, WILSON and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Sharon Bridgewater, proceeding pro se, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against DeKalb County, the DeKalb County Chief of Police, and various DeKalb County police officers, asserting claims under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The action stems from events that occurred in October and November 2007 in Georgia. Bridgewater filed the complaint in April 2010, more than two years after either event. The district court sua sponte dismissed her complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), finding that it was time barred. Bridgewater appears to contend that the statute of limitations should have been tolled under Georgia Code § 9-3-99 while "[c]harges were pending against [her] from 2007 thru [sic] 2009" for "theft by taking."
We review de novo a district court's dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim under to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), viewing all allegations in the complaint as true. Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1489-90 (11th Cir.1997). The length of the limitations period governing a § 1983 action is dictated by state law. Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 387, 127 S.Ct. 1091, 1094, 166 L.Ed.2d 973 (2007). "[T]he proper limitations period for all section 1983 claims in Georgia is the two year period set forth in O.C.G.A. § 9-3-33 for personal injuries." Williams v. City of Atlanta, 794 F.2d 624, 626 (11th Cir.1986); see also Ga.Code Ann. § 9-3-33.
Georgia provides for statutory tolling of tort claims arising from a crime until the prosecution of the person who committed that crime is final. GA. CODE ANN. § 9-3-99. That tolling, however, is expressly limited to "any cause of action in tort that may be brought by the victim of an alleged crime." Id. (emphasis added). Bridgewater admits that she was not the victim of the alleged crime, but instead she was the defendant charged with the crime. See Valades v. Uslu, 301 Ga.App. 885, 689 S.E.2d 338, 342 (2009). Therefore, § 9-3-99 did not toll the two-year statute of limitations period.
AFFIRMED.
. "We construe pro se pleadings liberally." H & R Block E. Enter., Inc. v. Morris, 606 F.3d 1285, 1288 n. 1 (11th Cir.2010).
. Even liberally construing Bridgewater's largely incomprehensible brief, she does not appear to make any additional arguments in it. Therefore, any additional arguments are abandoned. See Access Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1330 (11th Cir.2004) ("If an argument is not fully briefed . we deem [it] abandoned and do not address its merits.").