of his proposed amendment. Accordingly, we cannot say the district court abused its discretion when it dismissed Coney’s complaint without first allowing him to amend. AFFIRMED. 1 . Coney’s complaint raised claims against the United States Bureau of Prisons, the prison warden, Deering Hospital, and various other prison medical staff. The magistrate judge recommended dismissing Coney’s claims against the United States and Deering Hospital because they were not "individuals” that could be sued pursuant to Bivens. The magistrate judge also recommended dismissing Coney’s Federal Tort Claims Act, conspiracy and state law claims. Coney does not appeal the dismissal of these claims, and we do not address them further. See Wilkerson v. Grinnell Corp., 270 F.3d 1314, 1322 (11th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). 2 . We review de novo a dismissal under §
holding that issues not raised in the initial brief on appeal are deemed abandoned holding that issues raised but not supported by argument are deemed abandoned holding that issues not briefed on appeal are deemed abandoned holding that issues not argued in initial brief are deemed waived holding that issues not argued on appeal are deemed abandoned