USCA11 Case: 24-14245 Document: 21-1 Date Filed: 08/08/2025 Page: 1 of 4

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 24-14245 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

ANDY C. NOWELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus A. DAVID JOHNSON, Judge, Pc ala, JEREMY ARMSTRONG, Lawyer Pc al, CONNIE COOPER, Lawyer Pc al, KENNETH DAVIS, DA Pc al, MARK ANTHONY, Col Ga DA, USCA11 Case: 24-14245 Document: 21-1 Date Filed: 08/08/2025 Page: 2 of 4

2 Opinion of the Court 24-14245

VICKI NOVAK, Public Def,

Defendants-Appellees.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama D.C. Docket No. 3:23-cv-00562-MHT-CSC ____________________

Before JILL PRYOR, BRASHER, and BLACK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Andy Nowell, a pro se Alabama prisoner, appeals the dismis- sal of his amended 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. 1 After review, we affirm the district court. While the district court dismissed Nowell’s case for failure to comply with an order of the court regarding the filing of an amended complaint, the district court also reasoned that even if

1 While Nowell designates that he is also appealing the denial of his Fed. R.

Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment in his Notice of Appeal, he has abandoned any argument regarding the denial of that motion because he has failed to raise such an argument on appeal. See Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008) (stating although we read pro se briefs liberally, issues not briefed by a pro se litigant are considered abandoned). USCA11 Case: 24-14245 Document: 21-1 Date Filed: 08/08/2025 Page: 3 of 4

24-14245 Opinion of the Court 3

Nowell’s complaint were not subject to dismissal for failure to com- ply with the court’s order, the amended complaint was also time- barred. We address the timeliness of the amended complaint. The Supreme Court has held that state personal injury stat- utes of limitations apply to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 actions, and where there are multiple statutes of limitations for personal injury ac- tions, the residual or general statute should be applied. Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235, 245-250 (1989). In Alabama, the residual per- sonal injury limitation period is two years from the date the cause of action accrues. Ala. Code § 6-2-38(l). Nowell’s amended complaint stated the constitutional viola- tions he alleged occurred in 2015 and 2018. Thus, the two-year stat- ute of limitations had run on his claims by the time he filed his ini- tial complaint in 2023. See Owens, 488 U.S. at 248-50; Ala. Code § 6- 2-38(1). Because the statute of limitations had already run on his claims when he filed his complaint in 2023, any potential error by the district court in dismissing his case for failure to comply with a court order was necessarily harmless. EEOC v. STME, LLC, 938 F.3d 1305, 1322 (11th Cir. 2019) (explaining where there is not a reason- able likelihood the outcome would have been different but for the district court’s error, the error is harmless, and we will not reverse the district court). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s dis- missal of Nowell’s case with prejudice as his action was time- barred. See Mickles on behalf of herself v. Country Club Inc., 887 F.3d 1270, 1280 (11th Cir. 2018) (stating “[w]here a dismissal without prejudice has the effect of precluding a plaintiff from refiling his USCA11 Case: 24-14245 Document: 21-1 Date Filed: 08/08/2025 Page: 4 of 4

4 Opinion of the Court 24-14245

claim due to the running of the statute of limitations, the dismissal is tantamount to a dismissal with prejudice” (quotation marks omitted)). AFFIRMED.