Case Name: Donald SANDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of ALABAMA, Joyce Nickals, Kenneth Lolley, Officer Ricky, Tony Glenn, et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-09-16
Citations: 396 F. App'x 604
Docket Number: No. 09-16151
Parties: Donald SANDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of ALABAMA, Joyce Nickals, Kenneth Lolley, Officer Ricky, Tony Glenn, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before TJOFLAT, CARNES and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 396
Pages: 604–604

Head Matter:
Donald SANDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of ALABAMA, Joyce Nickals, Kenneth Lolley, Officer Ricky, Tony Glenn, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 09-16151
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Sept. 16, 2010.
Donald Sanderson Harvest, AL, pro se.
Before TJOFLAT, CARNES and WILSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Donald Sanderson, an Alabama prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit for failing to comply with a court order to pay an initial partial filing fee in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and to file a prisoner consent form. On appeal, he offers no argument on the issue of whether the district court abused its discretion in dismissing his complaint, and instead argues at length that his § 1983 complaint is meritorious.
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a) requires that appellate briefs 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)(9). Although we liberally construe briefs filed by pro se litigants, issues not briefed on appeal by a pro se litigant are deemed abandoned. Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir.2008) (citations omitted).
Because Sanderson has not offered any argument as to whether the district court abused its discretion in dismissing his complaint without prejudice, he has abandoned the sole relevant issue in this appeal. Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.