USCA11 Case: 24-13277 Document: 17-1 Date Filed: 04/21/2025 Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 24-13277 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ FREEMAN ADRIAN SMALLS, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus MEDLINE INDUSTRIES,

Defendant-Appellee.

____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 1:24-cv-01019-SEG ____________________ USCA11 Case: 24-13277 Document: 17-1 Date Filed: 04/21/2025 Page: 2 of 3

2 Opinion of the Court 24-13277

Before JORDAN, KIDD, and WILSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: Freeman Smalls, proceeding pro se, appeals the dismissal of his second amended complaint, which asserted a claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 623. He argues that the district court erred by dismissing his com- plaint for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

Typically, we review de novo a district court’s sua sponte dis- missal for failure to state a claim pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). See Alba v. Montford, 517 F.3d 1249, 1252 (11th Cir. 2008). But when a party fails to object to a magistrate judge’s report and recommen- dation (“R&R”) after being informed of the right to object, of the time period for objecting, and of the consequences of failing to ob- ject, that party waives the right to challenge the district court’s or- der on appeal if it was based on those unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. R. 3-1. Under those circumstances, we will only review for plain error in the interests of justice. See id. Here, Mr. Smalls waived his right to challenge the district court’s ruling. He failed to object to the magistrate judge’s R&R, which recommended dismissal of the second amended complaint.

Mr. Smalls has also abandoned any argument that his com- plaint stated a valid age discrimination claim by failing to make such an argument on appeal. Although we read pro se briefs liber- ally, issues not briefed by a pro se litigant are considered abandoned.

See Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008).

USCA11 Case: 24-13277 Document: 17-1 Date Filed: 04/21/2025 Page: 3 of 3

24-13277 Opinion of the Court 3

Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.