[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 09-13244 OCTOBER 28, 2010 Non-Argument Calendar JOHN LEY ________________________ CLERK

D. C. Docket No. 09-14123-CV-KMM

WAYNE BISSO,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

LORNA JENSEN, ROBERT STONE, Attorney, KENNETH PALMER, Attorney, BRIAN M. BEAUCHAMP, Attorney, KENNETH NORMAN, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida _________________________ (October 28, 2010) Before EDMONDSON, PRYOR and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Wayne Bisso, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s

sua sponte dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to state a claim,

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).1 No reversible error has been shown; we affirm.

Bisso filed a section 1983 complaint against many defendants, including

lawyers. He claimed that he had been falsely arrested and prosecuted in Florida for

grand theft of assets of his deceased common-law wife. He claimed that his

Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated when the state failed to recognize his

Georgia common-law marriage. The district court dismissed Bisso’s complaint

because (1) the complaint did not explain how or whether defendants acted under

the color of state law; (2) to the extent the named lawyers acted under color of state

law, they were entitled to immunity; and (3) Bisso’s challenges to his criminal

proceedings were barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 114 S.Ct. 2364 (1994).

On appeal, Bisso makes arguments about rulings in his criminal trial and

maintains that he and his late wife had a common-law marriage. He also argues

1 We review de novo the district court’s sua sponte dismissal for failure to state a claim under section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Hughes v. Lott, 350 F.3d 1157, 1159-60 (11th Cir. 2003).

2 that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance and that the district court

should have ordered an evidentiary hearing on this issue. But Bisso makes no

arguments about the district court’s rulings on his section 1983 complaint: he does

not challenge the district court’s conclusions that no defendant acted under color of

state law, that the lawyers were immune from suit, or the applicability of the Heck

bar. As such, Bisso has abandoned any challenge to the district court’s dismissal

of his section 1983 complaint. See Horsley v. Feldt, 304 F.3d 1125, 1131 n.1 (11th

Cir. 2002) (explaining that issues not argued on appeal are deemed waived by a pro

se litigant).2

AFFIRMED.

2 To the extent Bisso seeks to challenge his motion to reclassify -- which he filed after the district court’s dismissal of his section 1983 complaint and in which he sought to convert his complaint into a habeas corpus petition -- that order is not properly before us. See Fed.R.App.P. 3(c)(1)(B) (stating that the notice of appeal must designate the judgment, order, or part being appealed).

3