Asar Khufu El and Anna Sanders (Appellants), proceeding pro se, appeal the district court’s dismissal of their complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. On appeal, Appellants do not address the reasons for the district court’s dismissal of their complaint. Instead, Appellants argue that CitiMort-gage lacked standing to initiate foreclosure proceedings, and that the district court erred by refusing to enter a default judgment against Century Mortgage Corp. (Century).

Appellants’ complaint did not allege any facts to support their argument that Citi-Mortgage lacked standing to start the foreclosure proceedings. Their conclusory allegations were insufficient to state a claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). As for Appellants’ other claims, Appellants have abandoned them by failing to address them in their opening brief. See Greenbriar, Ltd. v. City of Alabaster, 881 F.2d 1570, 1573 n. 6 (11th Cir. 1989).

We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s denial of a motion for default judgment. Mitchell v. Brown & William *307 son Tobacco Corp., 294 F.3d 1309, 1316 (11th Cir. 2002). A party’s default does not by itself warrant the entry of a default judgment unless there is “a sufficient basis in the pleadings for the judgment entered.” Nishimatsu Constr. Co. v. Hous. Nat’l Bank, 515 F.2d 1200, 1206 (5th Cir. 1975). 1 Century’s failure to answer the complaint did not require the district court to enter a default judgment because Appellants’ complaint failed to provide a proper basis for judgment against Century. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it refused to enter a default judgment against Century.

AFFIRMED.