Hans Kaiser v. Scott Steele , 646 F. App'x 906 ( 2016 )

Case: 15-11052 Date Filed: 04/04/2016 Page: 1 of 2
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-11052
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:14-cv-01064-VMC-TBM
HANS KAISER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
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.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(April 4, 2016)
Case: 15-11052 Date Filed: 04/04/2016 Page: 2 of 2
Before HULL, MARCUS, and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
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, 135 S. Ct. 759 (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.
2