Smith pays the appropriate fee, criminal cases, or litigation in state courts. The district court quoted § 1915 in full — including its exception for cases where the prisoner is in danger of serious physical injury — -and did not add any sanction beyond what the statute specifically permits. The district court’s injunction was not an abuse of discretion. AFFIRMED. 1 . Smith does not challenge the district court's pretrial rulings disposing of certain defendants and claims. Although we liberally construe pro se briefs, those issues have been abandoned. See Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir.2008). 2 . Smith also raises several constitutional objections to the district court's injunctive order, but those are foreclosed by our prior panel precedent. See Rivera, 144 F.3d at 732
holding that the cap does not violate equal protection holding that doctrine does not violate equal protection holding that  1915g does not violate a prisoners right to access the courts separation of powers due process or equal protection holding that the act does not violate separation of powers is not void for vagueness and does not violate principles of due process by allowing a victim veto precluding application of the act holding that adam walsh act does not violate procedural due process require excessive bail or violate separation of powers