
    Mark HANDY, Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellant, v. Tina COOK, Cooper Cook, Defendants-Counter Claimants-Appellees, Kenneth Chapman, Mike Burns, City of Macon, John Does, 1 through 10, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 11-14556
    Non-Argument Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    May 11, 2012.
    Mark Handy, Macon, GA, pro se.
    Bryan D. Scott, The Law Office of Bryan D. Scott, LLC, Jason D. Lewis, Thomas F. Richardson, Joseph David Stephens, Chambless Higdon Richardson Katz & Griggs, LLP, Macon, GA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before TJOFLAT, EDMONDSON and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Mark Handy, proceeding pro se in his suit alleging civil rights and state law violations, appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the City of Macon, Mike Burns, Kenneth Chapman, Tina Cook, and Cooper Cook, as well as the district court’s denial of his motion for default judgment and sanctions.

We review de novo a grant of summary judgment, Holloman v. Mail-Well Corp., 443 F.3d 832, 836 (11th Cir.2006), and review for abuse of discretion a denial of a motion for default judgment, Mitchell v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 294 F.3d 1309, 1316 (11th Cir.2002). “While we read briefs filed by pro se litigants liberally, issues not briefed on appeal by a pro se litigant are deemed abandoned.” Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir.2008) (internal citations omitted). Here, the “Statement of Issues” section of Handy’s brief lists a number of general issues stated in question form, but Handy does not offer any corresponding argument, much less any meritorious argu-x ment, on appeal. We find that Handy has abandoned these issues on appeal and affirm the district court.

AFFIRMED. 
      
      . The brief states, for example,. “Did the District Court cite the correct cases to support their ruling” and "Did the District Court consider Title 18 U.S.C. Section 241, Conspiracy Against Rights in making their [sic] ruling." Following the “Statement of Issues,” the brief discusses an immaterial transcript page-numbering issue and proceeds directly to a broad “Conclusion,” omitting any meaningful argument regarding the issues on appeal.
     