Donald Sanderson v. State of AL

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
SEPTEMBER 16, 2010
JOHN LEY
CLERK
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 09-16151
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 09-01528-CV-5-JHH-PWG
DONALD SANDERSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
STATE OF ALABAMA,
JOYCE NICKALS,
KENNETH LOLLEY,
OFFICER RICKY,
TONY GLENN, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
__________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama
_________________________
(September 16, 2010)
Before TJOFLAT, CARNES and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

-- 1 of 2 --

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.
2

-- 2 of 2 --