PER CURIAM: On July 15, 2005, the district court granted Appellees’ Rule 12(
b) motion to dismiss Appellant’s complaint for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, holding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under 46 U.S.C. § 31325(b)(1), 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and 28 U.S.C. § 1333. In the “Argument”
section of Appellant’s initial brief, he fails to (1) cite §§ 31325(b)(1), 1331, and 1333; (2) cite a single case addressing the application of these statutes; or (3) explain how these statutes serve as a basis for subject matter jurisdiction. Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a)(9)(
A) and our precedent, therefore, Appellant abandoned the relevant arguments he could have raised against the district court’s holding. See Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(9)(A); Doe v. Moore, 410 F.3d 1337, 1349 n. 10 (11th Cir.2005). Furthermore, even if Appellant had followed Rule 28(a)(9)(A), we would still hold §§ 31325(b)(1), 1331, and 1333 do not provide the federal courts subject matter jurisdiction over this case. AFFIRMED. .
Although Appellant discusses § 31325(b)(1) on page 16 of his initial brief, he does so in the context of explaining how the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over his May 15, 2005, foreclosure proceeding; he does not, however, explain how § 31325(b)(1) provides the district court subject matter jurisdiction over this case.