Jorge Valhuerdis, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se the denial of his motion to compel trial counsel to supply a copy of the criminal case record. The government moves for a summary affirmance and to stay the briefing schedule. The government argues that Valhuerdis has abandoned any argument that he could have made challenging the denial of his motion. “[W]e read briefs filed by pro se litigants liberally,” but Valhuerdis fails to mention, let alone contest the denial of, his motion to compel in his brief on appeal, so we deem that issue abandoned. See Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008). Because the “position [of the United States] ․ is clearly right as a matter of law so that there [is] no substantial question as to the outcome of the case,” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969), we grant the motion for summary affirmance and dismiss as moot the motion to stay the briefing schedule.
We AFFIRM the denial of Valhuerdiss motion to compel, and we DISMISS as moot the motion to stay the briefing schedule.
PER CURIAM: