USCA11 Case: 22-12776 Document: 52-1 Date Filed: 02/08/2024 Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-12776 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

In re: ALBERTO SOLER SOMOHANO, Debtor. ______________________________________________ ALBERTO SOLER-SOMOHANO, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY, GOVERNMENT SPONSOR ENTERPRISE, FANNIE MAE, KONDAUR CAPITAL LLC, MICHAEL HANZMAN, et al., USCA11 Case: 22-12776 Document: 52-1 Date Filed: 02/08/2024 Page: 2 of 3

2 Opinion of the Court 22-12776

Defendants-Appellees.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cv-23235-MGC, Bkcy No. 1:21-bk-01057-AJC ____________________

Before WILSON, JORDAN, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Alberto Solar,1 proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his appeal of a bankruptcy court’s dismissal of an ad- versary proceeding. We ordinarily review a district court’s dismissal for want of prosecution for abuse of discretion. Morewitz v. W. of Eng. Ship Owners Mut. Prot. & Indem. Ass’n, 62 F.3d 1356, 1366 (11th Cir. 1995). However, issues not raised in an appellant’s initial brief are deemed abandoned and will not be addressed absent extraordinary circumstances. United States v. Campbell, 26 F.4th 860, 871–72 (11th Cir. 2022) (en banc). “A party fails to adequately brief a claim when he does not plainly and prominently raise it.” Sapuppo v. Allstate

1 While the appellant’s surname has been listed as “Soler-Somohano” and “So-

lar‑Somohano” in certain filings, this opinion refers to him as “Solar,” con- sistent with the name he uses in his brief. USCA11 Case: 22-12776 Document: 52-1 Date Filed: 02/08/2024 Page: 3 of 3

22-12776 Opinion of the Court 3

Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 681 (11th Cir. 2014) (quotation marks omitted). Importantly, we have “long held that an appellant abandons a claim when he either makes only passing references to it or raises it in a perfunctory manner without supporting argu- ments and authority.” Id. “Pro se pleadings are held to a less strin- gent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and will, there- fore, be liberally construed.” Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998) (per curiam). Yet an issue not briefed on appeal by a pro se litigant—even when liberally construed—is still deemed abandoned. Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). Here, Solar has abandoned on appeal the issue of whether the district court abused its discretion in dismissing his case for lack of prosecution. His brief challenges the Federal Housing Finance Agency’s validity as a party-appellee and raises unsubstantiated al- legations regarding the bankruptcy judge’s competency in the un- derlying case. Even with the benefit of liberal construction, Solar does not present arguments on appeal addressing the district court’s dismissal of his case, or its rationale in support thereof. Ac- cordingly, we affirm. AFFIRMED.