### IN THE UNI TED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCUIT

No. 11-10983 Summary Calendar

EARL H. MACKEY, III, Plaintiff - Appellant
v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner, Social Security Administration; TEXAS REHABILITATION COMMISSION, Defendants - Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 6:10-CV-105

Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Earl H. Mackey, III, proceeding pro s e , challenges the district court’s dismissal of his action against the Texas Department of Assistive Rehabilitative Services (DARS) and Micheal J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security. We affirm. In 2008, Mackey applied for a period of disabilit y a n d for disability insurance benefits, pursuant to Title II of the Social Security Act. The Commissioner denied Mackey’s application, initially and upon reconsideration. U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D August 16, 20 12 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Pursua nt to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court hasd ete rm inedthat this op inion s houldnot * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-10983 Document: 00511958735 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/16/2012No. 11-10983

An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) held a hearing on Mackey’s application and held that Mackey did not qualify for di s ab i lity insurance. The ALJ’s decision became the Commissioner’s final de c ision after the Appeals Council denied Mackey’ s r e qu e s t for review. This action, in which Mackey seeks $972,000 in past benefits and $1,000,000,000 in punitive damages, followed. Mackey’s action: (1) seeks judicial review of the Commissioner’s denial of disability benefits, under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); (2) claims criminal conspiracy against his constitutional rights, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241; and (3) claims the denial of disability benefits as discrimination against him, in violation of 42 U .S.C. § 1983. The district court dismissed the § 405(g) claim aga i n s t th e Commissioner, finding the C o m mi s sio ner ap p li e d th e p roper legal standards and substantial evidence in the record supported the decision to deny benefits. See Audler v. Astrue , 501 F.3d 446, 4 4 7 (5th Cir. 2007). The court dismissed the § 405(g) claim against DARS on Eleventh Amendment immunity grounds. The court dismissed the § 241 claim ag ainst both parties because it is a criminal statute and does not provide for civil remedies. Finally, the court dismissed the § 1983 claims, against the Commissioner because he was a federal official acting unde r c o l o r of federal law, not state law, and against DARS on Eleventh Amendment immunity grounds. On appeal, Mackey does not address the merits or reasoning of the district court’s dismissal of his claims. Rather, he recounts his past failed attempts at obtaining disability insurance and generally acc u s es defendants of discriminating against him by not granting his requests. He also complains of not h avi n g c o u nsel appointed to him for this appeal, a request we previously denied because Mackey failed to demonstr a t e e xceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel.

2 Case: 11-10983 Document: 00511958735 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/16/2012No. 11-10983

Although we “liberally construe” the filings of pro se litigants and “apply less stringent standards to parties proceeding pro se than to parties represented by counsel,” pro se appellants must still comply with the principles of appellate procedure. Grant v. Cuellar , 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). The appellant’s brief must contain an argument, which in turn must contain his “c o nt e ntions and the reasons for them, with citations to the authorities and parts of the record on w h i c h the appellant relies” and “for each issue, a concise

s t a tement of the applicable standard of review.” Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9); see Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). General arguments without

c i t a ti ons to any error are insufficient to preserve issues for appeal. See Brinkmann v. Da l l

. Cn t y. Deputy Sheriff Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987) (stating that failure to identify any error in district court’s analysis is as if appellant had not appealed judgment). Because Mackey fails to address the district court’s reasons for dismissing his claims, he has abandoned all issues on appeal. Furthermore, even if Mackey had not abandoned these iss u e s , a r e view of the district court’s order and its reasoning shows that his claims were properly dismissed. Accordin gly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

3 Case: 11-10983 Document: 00511958735 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/16/2012