Lucina Carranco appealed an order to remand a dispossessory action to state court and award attorney’s fees for Carranco’s improper removal. This court dismissed the appeal of the order of remand for lack of jurisdiction, but the appeal of the award of attorney’s fees was permitted to go forward. Because Carranco did not challenge the award of attorney’s fees in her brief, that argument is considered waived. See Rowe v. Schreiber, 139 F.3d 1381, 1382 n. 1 (11th Cir. 1998).

In deference to Carranco’s pro se status, even if we liberally construed Carranco’s brief to address the underlying merits of the award of attorney’s fees, we would affirm. The standard of review would be for abuse of discretion. Legg v. Wyeth, 428 F.3d 1317 (11th Cir. 2005). Because Carranco concedes that the complaint against her did not raise a federal question and removal was not proper under Georgia v. Rachel, 384 U.S. 780, 792, 86 S.Ct. 1783, 1790, 16 L.Ed.2d 925 (1966), the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees.

AFFIRMED.