* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should no t be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED
December 23, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-20256 Summary Calendar

JIM AMIR MOLIN, also known as Bendavid,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

HARRIS COUNTY JAIL; J. W. HUGHES, Deputy; KELLY, Doctor; BOETIGER, Deputy; J. LEWIS, Deputy; RIED, Sergeant,

Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

No. 4:05-CV-61

--------------------

Before SMITH, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jim Molin appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Molin contends that the defendants u sed excessive force against him on numerous occasions and

were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical conditions.

On appeal, Molin summarily reiterates his allegations that hewas assaulted by Deputy Lewis on March 26, 2003, and by “officers”

in May and August 2003. Molin alleges that, despite his requests

for medical treatment, defendants failed to provide treatment for

over two weeks.

Molin provides no analysis of the district court’s reasoning

or citations to any authority in support of his bare assertions

that the court erred in dismissing his claims; he merely disagrees

with the court’s conclusions related to his deliberate indifference

claims. Essentially, Molin’s brief does little more than state

that he was given the wrong or delayed treatment and was repeatedly

assaulted, though he admits he cannot prove the assaults.

Although pro se briefs are liberall y construed, even p ro se
litigants must brief arguments to preserve them. Y ohey v. Collins
,

985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Molin’s brief fails to satisfy the requirements of F ED

. R. A PP

. P. 28(a)(9), which requires an

argument, with “contentions and the reasons for them, with citati ons to the authorities and parts of the record on which the

appellant relies” and “for each issue, a concise statement of the

applicable standard of review.”

General arguments giving only broad standards of review and

not citing to specific errors are insufficient to preserve issues

for appeal. Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner , 813

F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Moreover, when an appellant fails

to identify error in the district court’s decision, it is as if he

had not appealed that judgment. I d. This court “will not raiseand discuss legal issues that

. . . [Molin] has failed to assert.”

Id.

Under the standard set forth in Brinkmann and Yohey
, Molin has

not adequately briefed any issue for this court’s review. His appeal has no arguable merit and is frivolous. See Howard v. King
,
707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). It is therefore DISMISSED.

See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2.

The dismissal of this appeal as frivolous counts as a strike

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), as does the district court’s dismissal

of the complaint. S ee Adepegba v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 385-88

(5th Cir. 1996). Molin is CAUTIONED that if he accumulates three

strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), he will not be able to proceed

in forma pauperis 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.

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.