Browning v. Love

¶1 Former Texas prisoner Tyronn Blister Browning appeals the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action challenging his job assignment during his incarceration. On appeal, Browning does not address any of the facts or issues raised in his complaint or the motion for summary judgment, nor does he make any particular allegations against any of the named defendants. Failure to identify an error in the district court’s analysis is the same as if the appellant had not appealed the judgment. Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.1987). Although pro se briefs are afforded liberal construction, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972), even pro se litigants must brief arguments in order to preserve them, Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.1993). Browning’s appeal is without arguable merit and is thus frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.1983). Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED. 5th Cir. R. 42.2.