Opinion ID: 3063722
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Claims against Enrique and McDonald

Text: “Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally construed.” Boxer X v. Harris, 437 F.3d 1107, 1110 (11th Cir. 2006) (quotation omitted). Nonetheless, “even in the case of pro se litigants this leniency does not give a court license to serve as de facto counsel for a party . . . .” GJR Investments, Inc. v. County of Escambia, Fla., 132 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir. 1998). As a result, arguments not raised on appeal by pro se litigants are deemed abandoned. See Horsley v. Feldt, 304 F.3d 1125, 1128, 1131 n.1 (11th Cir. 2001). Despite liberally construing Smith’s brief, Smith does not assert that the court erred by dismissing his claims against Enrique and McDonald. Furthermore, nothing in Smith’s brief could be liberally construed as an attack on the court’s reasons for granting Enrique and McDonald judgment as a matter of law on Smith’s malicious prosecution claims. Accordingly, Smith has abandoned these claims on appeal. See Horsley, 304 F.3d at 1131 n.1.