
    Die K. BLAISE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY (CIA), Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), National Security Agency (NSA), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), Richard Burr, Chairman, United States Senate Intelligence Committee, Paul D. Ryan, Speaker of the House, United States House of Representatives, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 17-10419 Non-Argument Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    (November 27, 2017)
    Die Kouame Blaise, Pro Se
    Before WILSON, MARTIN, and JILL . PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Pro se appellant, Die K. Blaise, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his eight-count amended civil rights complaint against five federal agencies, a U.S. Senator, and the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, In his amended complaint, Blaise alleged that the “intelligence community” improperly used electromagnetic frequency devices to conduct non-consensual experiments on U.S. citizens and to harass, intimidate, and kill individuals who filed complaints. The district court dismissed all of the allegations in his complaint under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. In addition to arguing that dismissal of these claims was improper, he raises several -other claims for the first time on appeal.

• Keeping in mind that pro se complaints are liberally construed, we apply the same standard that governs dismissals under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) dismissals. Alba v. Montford, 517 F.3d 1249, 1252 (11th Cir. 2008). Arguments raised for the first time on appeal that were not presented in the district court are waived. Access Now, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1331 (11th Cir. 2004). Reviewing the dismissal de novo and taking the allegations in the complaint as true, see Alba, 517 F.3d at 1252, we affirm the district court.

Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) requires the district court to dismiss a case filed by a prisoner if the court determines that the complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. The district court properly dismissed Blaise’s amended complaint because Blaise failed to demonstrate any cognizable claim for relief as to his original eight claims.

AFFIRMED.  