Case Name: Jewell D. ROWLAND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-08-04
Citations: 193 F. App'x 323
Docket Number: No. 05-60404
Parties: Jewell D. ROWLAND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 193
Pages: 323–323

Head Matter:
Jewell D. ROWLAND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 05-60404
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 4, 2006.
Jewell D. Rowland, Bolton, MS, pro se.
Felicia Collete Adams, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Mississippi, Jackson, MS, Joseph Edward Dunn, Social Security Administration, Boston, MA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jewell D. Rowland appeals the district court's decision affirming the denial of his application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act. He asserts that he was not afforded due process under the law and that documentation he submitted in support of his claims was not fully considered.
Rowland, however, does not brief his claims on appeal nor does he address the district court's determination that the administrative law judge's decision was supported by substantial evidence. Although this court liberally construes pro se briefs, see 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). Because Rowland fails to brief any of his claims on appeal, they are deemed abandoned. Yohey, 985 F.2d at 224-25. Accordingly, the district court's judgment is AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.