Case Name: Hans KAISER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Scott STEELE, Pinellas County Detective, Two Unknown Female Officers, Sexual Predator and Offender Tracking Unit ("S.P.O.T."), Pinellas County Sheriff's Office, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-04-04
Citations: 646 F. App'x 906
Docket Number: No. 15-11052
Parties: Hans KAISER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Scott STEELE, Pinellas County Detective, Two Unknown Female Officers, Sexual Predator and Offender Tracking Unit ("S.P.O.T."), Pinellas County Sheriff's Office, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before HULL, MARCUS, and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 646
Pages: 906–906

Head Matter:
Hans KAISER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Scott STEELE, Pinellas County Detective, Two Unknown Female Officers, Sexual Predator and Offender Tracking Unit ("S.P.O.T."), Pinellas County Sheriff's Office, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-11052
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
April 4, 2016.
Hans Kaiser, Coral Springs, FL, pro se.
Before HULL, MARCUS, and WILSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Hans Kaiser, a prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the sua sponte dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Rule 28(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure requires that an appellant's brief contain a statement of the issues presented for review and the appellant's contentions concerning those issues. Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(5), (a)(8). Although we liberally construe pro se briefs, arguments not raised on appeal— even by pro se litigants — are "deemed abandoned." See Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir.2008) (per curiam).
In this case, the district court dismissed Kaiser's action as time-barred, which Kaiser fails to address in his brief. Indeed, on appeal, Kaiser does not mention the statute of limitations, and we will not act as his "de facto counsel" in order to preserve the issue. See Campbell v. Air Jamaica Ltd., 760 F.3d 1165, 1168-69 (11th Cir.2014), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 135 S.Ct. 759, 190 L.Ed.2d 628 (2014). Therefore, Kaiser has abandoned any argument that his claim is not time-barred. See Timson, 518 F.3d at 874. Accordingly, upon review of the record and consideration of Kaiser's brief, we affirm the district court's dismissal.
AFFIRMED.