USCA11 Case: 25-10891 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 12/12/2025 Page: 1 of 3

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-10891 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

JOHN RANDALL FUTCH, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus

FEDEX GROUND, Defendant, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants-Appellees. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 4:22-cv-00295-RSB-CLR ____________________

Before NEWSOM, ABUDU, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: USCA11 Case: 25-10891 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 12/12/2025 Page: 2 of 3

2 Opinion of the Court 25-10891

John Futch, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his civil complaint against former United States Attor- ney General Merrick B. Garland, the United States of America, and all Federal Agencies (collectively, “Federal Defendants”). The dis- trict court dismissed the Federal Defendants after determining that they were entitled to sovereign immunity. Futch now contends that the proceedings below included assorted “plain error[s]” and “structural error[s].” He has also filed in this court a motion for leave to file a supplemental appendix, consisting of documents that he concedes were not part of the record in the district court, and a motion to seal that supplemental appendix. Considering first his motion to file a supplemental appendix, “[w]e rarely enlarge the record on appeal to include material not before the district court which has labored without the benefit of the proffered material.” CSX Transp., Inc. v. City of Garden City, 235 F.3d 1325, 1330 (11th Cir. 2000). We decline to exercise our discre- tion to do so here, because “the proffered material” would not “es- tablish beyond any doubt the proper resolution of the pending is- sue[].” Id. Accordingly, Futch’s motion to file a supplemental ap- pendix is denied, and his accompanying motion to seal the supple- mental appendix is denied as moot. We turn next to the substance of Futch’s appeal. While pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys, a court may not “serve as de facto counsel for a party.” Campbell v. Air Jam. Ltd., 760 F.3d 1165, 1168–69 (11th Cir. 2014) (citation modified). Furthermore, “issues not briefed on USCA11 Case: 25-10891 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 12/12/2025 Page: 3 of 3

25-10891 Opinion of the Court 3

appeal by a pro se litigant are deemed abandoned.” Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008) (citation modified). An appellant “fails to adequately brief a claim when he does not plainly and prominently raise it.” Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 681 (11th Cir. 2014) (citation modified). Futch failed to argue that the district court should not have dismissed the Federal Defendants for lack of subject-matter juris- diction in his initial brief. To the extent he raised the issue at all in his reply brief, “we do not address arguments raised for the first time in a pro se litigant’s reply brief.” Timson, 518 F.3d at 874 (cita- tion modified). Therefore, this argument is abandoned even under the more lenient standards that apply to pro se litigants. We AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal of the Federal De- fendants. Futch’s motion for leave to file a supplemental appendix is DENIED. We sua sponte strike the proposed supplemental ap- pendix at Docket Entries 36-1 and 37-1. Accordingly, Futch’s mo- tion to seal the supplemental appendix is DENIED AS MOOT. AFFIRMED.