Case Name: Maxine NICHOLSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SPRING SAND & CLAY LP, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-05-29
Citations: 229 F. App'x 304
Docket Number: No. 06-20202
Parties: Maxine NICHOLSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SPRING SAND & CLAY LP, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 229
Pages: 304–305

Head Matter:
Maxine NICHOLSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SPRING SAND & CLAY LP, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 06-20202
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
May 29, 2007.
Maxine Nicholson, Cypress, TX, pro se.
Brock C. Akers, Phillips & Akers, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals pro se from a jury-verdict in favor of her employer in a discrimination case. Appellant points to no error. There is no legal argument or citation in the brief-only general conclusions. Although this Court liberally construes the briefs of pro se appellants, we also require that arguments be briefed to be preserved. Price v. Digital Equip. Corp., 846 F.2d 1026, 1028 (5th Cir.1988) (citations omitted). Accordingly, Appellant has abandoned her arguments by failing to argue them in the body of her brief. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.1993) (citing Fed.R.App.P. 28(a)(4)).
In addition, to the extent her brief reflects her disappointment with counsel, the Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not apply to civil proceedings. Sanchez v. United States Postal Serv., 785 F.2d 1236, 1237 (5th Cir.1986).
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.