USCA11 Case: 22-13033 Document: 12-1 Date Filed: 04/05/2023 Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 22-13033 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ PERSONNA WALKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus WESLEY PEACH,

Defendant-Appellee.

____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 7:22-cv-00067-HL ____________________ USCA11 Case: 22-13033 Document: 12-1 Date Filed: 04/05/2023 Page: 2 of 3

2 Opinion of the Court 22-13033

Before JORDAN, NEWSOM, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: Personna Walker filed an employment-discrimination suit.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the district court dismissed the complaint as frivolous. Proceeding pro se, Walker appeals.

We review the court’s screening determination that the complaint is frivolous for an abuse of discretion. Miller v. Donald, 541 F.3d 1091, 1100 (11th Cir. 2008). Although pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed and held to a less stringent standard than counseled pleadings, id., “issues not briefed on appeal by a pro se litigant are [still] deemed abandoned,” Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008). An appellant abandons an issue by failing to “plainly and prominently” raise it in her opening brief to us. See Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 681 (11th Cir. 2014). An appellant also abandons an issue when she makes only passing references to it or raises it in a perfunctory man- ner without supporting arguments and authority. Id. at 681–83.

Even liberally construed, Walker’s brief fails to “plainly and prominently” raise any issues for appeal and does so, at best, only USCA11 Case: 22-13033 Document: 12-1 Date Filed: 04/05/2023 Page: 3 of 3

22-13033 Opinion of the Court 3 “perfuctor[ily].” The “Argument” section of her brief comprises two pages listing four legal principles 1 and three other sentences. 2 Their application to Walker’s case is not readily apparent.

We must conclude, therefore, that Walker has not properly raised any issues for us to decide.

AFFIRMED.

1 The brief quotes or paraphrases: (1) a discrimination treatise discussing the availability of equitable tolling, (2) a case stating that principle, see Baldwin Cnty. Welcome Ctr. v. Brown, 466 U.S. 147, 151 (1984), (3) a regulation allow- ing the EEOC to assist complainants even after sending a right-to-sue notice, 29 C.F.R. § 1601.28, and (4) a Georgia statute describing when its statute of limitation begins running, Ga. Code Ann. § 9-3-96.

2 The first sentence says: “In this instance, the ruling was determined without full consideration of the law.” Br. of Appellant at 4. The final two sentences read: “As a result, the judge tolling was based upon the complaint; not on the right to sue letter issued by the EEOC. Dismissing the complaint with failure to state a claim and the defendant is immune from relief.” Id. at 5.