(11th Cir.1992). As for congressional abrogation, we have held that Congress did not intend to abrogate the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity in passing § 1983. Robinson, 966 F.2d at 640. Accordingly, the district court did not err by granting the State of Georgia’s motion to dismiss both the federal and state claims against it based on Eleventh Amendment immunity. The State of Georgia has not consented to being sued in federal court nor has Congress abrogated the state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity. AFFIRMED. 1 . We will not consider Alyshah’s argument, raised for the first time in his reply brief, that the district court erred-by dismissing his case while his motion to recuse the district court judge was pending. Cf. United States v. Magluta, 418 F.3d 1166, 1185-86 (11th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 2966, 165
holding that a contention raised for the first time in a reply brief was waived holding argument not raised in opening brief but raised for the first time in reply brief was waived holding that issue raised for the first time in reply brief was waived holding argument is waived when raised for first time in reply brief holding that argument raised for the first time in reply brief was deemed abandoned