Case Name: Tyronn Elister BROWNING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. K.C. LOVE, Doctor, Gurney Unit; Classification Department, Gurney Unit; Kay Sheeley, Regional Director; Rochelle McKinney, Professional Standards, Texas Department of Criminal Justice; John Sharp, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-12-09
Citations: 82 F. App'x 400
Docket Number: No. 03-40355
Parties: Tyronn Elister BROWNING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. K.C. LOVE, Doctor, Gurney Unit; Classification Department, Gurney Unit; Kay Sheeley, Regional Director; Rochelle McKinney, Professional Standards, Texas Department of Criminal Justice; John Sharp, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 82
Pages: 400–400

Head Matter:
Tyronn Elister BROWNING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. K.C. LOVE, Doctor, Gurney Unit; Classification Department, Gurney Unit; Kay Sheeley, Regional Director; Rochelle McKinney, Professional Standards, Texas Department of Criminal Justice; John Sharp, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 03-40355
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 9, 2003.
Tyronn Blister Browning, pro se, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Jason A. LeBoeuf, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Texas, Austin, TX, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
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.
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.