argument that she needs additional discovery. Badger contends she “was not [allowed] to plead her case before the Court.” (Appellant’s Br. at 2.) Badger then makes various discovery requests. {Id. at 2-5.) Badger’s main contention appears to be that she needed additional discovery to respond to MCG Health’s summary judgment motion. MCG Health responds that Badger did not preserve this issue because she raises it for the first time on appeal. As previously stated, we construe pro se pleadings liberally. Boxer X, 437 F.3d at 1110. However, even applying a liberal construction, issues not presented to the district court are waived on appeal. Access Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1331 (11th Cir.2004); see also Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). Badger does not contend that she presented
holding that pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed holding that issues not raised before a district court are waived on appeal holding that pro se pleadings will be liberally construed recognizing that we construe pro se complaints liberally holding that while pro se complaints are liberally construed issues not raised in the district court are deemed waived