Case ID: f-appx_476/html/0048-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Rodney Earl WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Rick THALER, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 11-20390
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    May 17, 2012.
    Rodney Earl Williams, Huntsville, TX, pro se.
    Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Rodney Williams, Texas prisoner # 759125, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (“IFP”), appeals the dismissal, as frivolous, of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. He has failed to provide argument that addresses the district court’s reasons for dismissing. See Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(9). Where an appellant does not identify error in the district court’s analysis, it is the same as if he had not appealed at all. Brinkmann v. Dali Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.1987). Although pro se briefs are afforded liberal construction, see Haines v. Kemer, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972), even pro se litigants must brief arguments to preserve them. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.1993). Williams’s failure to address the basis of the dismissal thus constitutes an abandonment of his claims.

The appeal is frivolous and is therefore DISMISSED. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2. The dismissal of this appeal counts as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir.1996). Williams is warned that if he accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g). Williams’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.