he has filed a subsequent civil action raising the same claims, it might be time barred. To the extent Nelson is challenging the court’s denial of his Rule 59(e) motion, we review the denial of a Rule 59(e) motion only for abuse of discretion. Lambert v. Fulton County, Ga., 253 F.3d 588, 598 (11th Cir.2001). Moreover, “[mjotions for reconsideration should not be used to raise legal arguments which could and should have been made before the judgment was issued.” Sanderlin v. Seminole Tribe of Florida, 243 F.3d 1282, 1292 (11th Cir.2001). Regardless, Nelson failed to raise this challenge in his initial brief. Thus, we deem waived any challenges to the district court’s denial of Nelson’s Rule 59(e) motion. See Access Now, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1330 (11th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). Although we have not articulated in a
holding that issues not raised in an appellants initial brief are deemed abandoned holding that issues not argued in initial brief are deemed waived holding that issues not raised in the initial brief on appeal are deemed abandoned holding that issues not raised in an initial brief on appeal are deemed abandoned holding that claims made but not argued in a brief are waived