(alterations in original). As discussed above, the Kinseys’ claims against Gould arise out of his representation of them in negotiating a settlement agreement and his refusal to continue that representation after the rejection of that agreement. In contrast, the federal claims the Kinseys attempted to bring against CitiFinancial and TranSouth allege wrongdoing in connection with loans the Kinseys had with these companies. These federal and state claims do not share a common nucleus of operative facts. See Palmer, 22 F.3d at 1566. In light of the foregoing, the district court’s dismissal of the Kinseys’ amended complaint is AFFIRMED. 1 . On appeal, the Kinseys have abandoned their claims against CitiFinancial and Tran-South. Although pro se pleadings are liberally cons (5th Cir.1980) (<HOLDING>); see also Bayro v. Reno, 142 F.3d 1377, 1379
holding in counseled case that listed issue was abandoned where it was not discussed in the argument portion of the brief holding an issue abandoned in a counseled case where although the defendant made passing references to issues in his brief he did not devote a discrete section of his brief to the argument and the references were undertaken as background to claims that he had expressly advanced holding that the petitioners failure to address an issue in the argument portion of his opening brief waived the issue holding in counseled appeal that an issue was abandoned where it was referred to in the statement of the case but no arguments on the merits were raised holding an issue listed in statement of issues on appeal but not addressed in brief is abandoned