Case: 17-13621 Date Filed: 09/19/2018 Page: 1 of 2

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 17-13621

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 4:17-cv-00204-MW-CAS MARSHA PAYTON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, SOUTHERN DISTRICT COURT OF FLORIDA, Miami, MIDDLE DISTRICT COURT OF FLORIDA, Orlando, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Civil rights and civil liberties, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Florida

________________________

(September 19, 2018)

Case: 17-13621 Date Filed: 09/19/2018 Page: 2 of 2 Before TJOFLAT, NEWSOM and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:

Marsha Payton, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s order sua sponte dismissing her amended employment-discrimination complaint as time- barred and barred by the doctrine of res judicata. On appeal, Payton discusses only the merits of her underlying employment-discrimination claims, and does not address the district court’s order dismissing her amended complaint. Though “we read briefs filed by pro se litigants liberally, … issues not briefed on appeal by a pro se litigant are deemed abandoned.” Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008) (internal citations omitted). Because Payton failed to contest the merits of the district court’s dismissal either in her initial brief or reply brief, she has abandoned any such claims, and the “merits will not be addressed.” Access Now, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1330 (11th Cir. 2004) (“Any issue that an appellant wants the Court to address should be specifically and clearly identified in the brief.”). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order dismissing Payton’s amended complaint.

AFFIRMED.

2