SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Derrick Gallaway, pro se, appeals from the district court’s sua sponte dismissal of his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction as well as the district court’s denial of his request for an extension of time to file a motion requesting leave to file an amended complaint. While Galla-way’s notice of appeal refers to the district court’s order, dated March 15, 2011, denying Gallaway’s request for an extension of time, we interpret his appeal before this Court as challenging the district court’s underlying dismissal of his complaint as well. See Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 256 (2d Cir. 1995) (“[W]e construe notices of appeal liberally, taking the parties’ intentions into account.”). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and the procedural history of the case.

We review “the district court’s ... sua sponte ... dismissal] for lack of subject matter jurisdiction ... de novo.” Digitel, Inc. v. MCI WorldCom, Inc., 239 F.3d 187, 190 (2d Cir. 2001) (per curiam). “We review a district court’s [denial of an] extension of time for abuse of discretion.” Tancredi v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 378 F.3d 220, 226 (2d Cir. 2004).

Gallaway, however, has presented no specific arguments challenging the district court’s determination that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider his complaint, or that the court erred by denying his request for an extension of time. Therefore, he has abandoned any potential claims on appeal. See LoSacco v. City of Middletown, 71 F.3d 88, 93 (2d Cir. 1995) (noting that, although “appellate courts generally do not hold pro se litigants rigidly to ... formal briefing standards,” “we *389 need not manufacture claims of error for an appellant proceeding pro se ”); see also JP Morgan Chase Bank v. Altos Homos de Mexico, S.A. de C.V., 412 F.3d 418, 428 (2d Cir. 2005) (“[Arguments not made in an appellant’s opening brief are waived even if the appellant pursued those arguments in the district court or raised them in a reply brief.”).

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.