
    MS LIFE INSURANCE CO., Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee, v. Donna J. BARFIELD, Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellant.
    No. 06-10565
    Non-Argument Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    Oct. 31, 2006.
    Walter D. Wilson, Jackson, MS, for Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee.
    James J. Egan, Jacksonville, FL, for Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellant.
    
      Before DUBINA, BLACK and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

In her notice of appeal, appellant Donna Barfield (“Barfield”) appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of MS Life Insurance Company (“MS”), and third party-defendant Buddy Hutchinson, Inc., and that portion of the district court’s order which denied Bar-field’s motion for continuance and for leave to amend.

We first observe, after reading Bar-field’s amended initial brief, that she fails to address the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of MS. Issues not argued on appeal are deemed waived. See United States v. Curtis, 380 F.3d 1308, 1310 (11th Cir.2004) (discussing longstanding rule in this circuit that issues not raised in a party’s initial brief on appeal are deemed waived), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 418, 163 L.Ed.2d 319 (2005).

We review a district court’s denial of trial continuances for abuse of discretion. United States v. Bowe, 221 F.3d 1183, 1189 (11th Cir.2000). We also review a district court’s denial of a motion for leave to amend a complaint for an abuse of discretion. Carruthers v. BSA Advertising, Inc., 357 F.3d 1213, 1217-18 (11th Cir.2004).

Assuming we have jurisdiction over the district court’s order filed on October 18, 2005, which denied Barfield’s motion to continue and motion for leave to amend, we affirm that order because we conclude from the record that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its rulings.

AFFIRMED.  