Opinion ID: 3148685
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: appeal and scope of review

Text: Although Goble appeals twelve orders, his initial brief, even when liberally construed, disputes only four orders: the three orders denying Goble’s motions to 8 Case: 14-15586 Date Filed: 10/22/2015 Page: 9 of 21 amend the complaint and the order dismissing each claim. Further, as to the dismissal order, Goble’s initial brief disputes only the dismissal of the claims against the United States and the SEC. Arguably, Goble raises additional issues arising out of the district court’s orders in a reply brief that is very difficult to decipher. But we do not consider those issues because “[a]rguments not properly presented in a party’s initial brief or raised for the first time in a reply brief are deemed waived.” Egidi v. Mukamai, 571 F.3d 1156, 1163 (11th Cir. 2009); accord Holland v. Gee, 677 F.3d 1047, 1066 (11th Cir. 2012) (“The law is by now well settled in this Circuit that a legal claim or argument that has not been briefed before the court is deemed abandoned and its merits will not be addressed.”). Even a pro se litigant is not forgiven for failing to raise an issue in the initial brief. Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008) (“While we read briefs filed by pro se litigants liberally, issues not briefed on appeal by a pro se litigant are deemed abandoned. Moreover, we do not address arguments raised for the first time in a pro se litigant’s reply brief.” (citations omitted)). Accordingly, we address only the arguments raised in the initial brief: that is, Goble’s arguments that the district court erred when it denied his motions to amend and dismissed the claims against the United States and the SEC. 9 Case: 14-15586 Date Filed: 10/22/2015 Page: 10 of 21