in their official capacities were barred by the Eleventh Amendment. As to Mayfield’s claims for damages against Johnson and Pierce in their individual capacities, the district court held that the two defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. The district court dismissed all claims against the TDCJ on sovereign immunity grounds. The TDCJ is an agency of the state, and as such is normally shielded from “suits by individuals absent [its] consent.” Frew ex rel. Frew v. Hawkins, 540 U.S. 431, 437, 124 S.Ct. 899, 157 L.Ed.2d 855 (2004). Mayfield does not challenge the district court’s dismissal of his claims against the TDCJ, and therefore has waived any contention that these claims should survive the district court’s judgment. See Longoria v. Dretke, 507 F.3d 898 (5th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). Still, sovereign immunity is subject to an
holding that arguments not raised in the opening brief are waived holding arguments not raised on appeal waived holding that prisoner waived first amendment claim because he failed to brief arguments on appeal holding that the appellant waived his claim on appeal because he failed to address that claim in either his application for a coa or his brief on appeal holding arguments not appropriately developed in brief are waived