Case Name: Ysidro VALENCIA, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Bryan COLLIER; Charles M. Bell, Warden; Huntsville Classification Committee; Major Butcher; Director Review Committee; Gerald Gulledge, Lieutenant, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-05-01
Citations: 688 F. App'x 283
Docket Number: No. 15-41742 Summary Calendar
Parties: Ysidro VALENCIA, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Bryan COLLIER; Charles M. Bell, Warden; Huntsville Classification Committee; Major Butcher; Director Review Committee; Gerald Gulledge, Lieutenant, Defendants-Appellees
Judges: Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 688
Pages: 283–283

Head Matter:
Ysidro VALENCIA, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Bryan COLLIER; Charles M. Bell, Warden; Huntsville Classification Committee; Major Butcher; Director Review Committee; Gerald Gulledge, Lieutenant, Defendants-Appellees
No. 15-41742 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed May 1, 2017
Ysidro Valencia, Pro Se
Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Ysidro Valencia, Texas prisoner # 743105, appeals the district court's dismissal of his lawsuit filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act. Valencia has failed to challenge the district court's determination that his complaint was repetitious. 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). Failure to identify an error in the district court's analysis is the same as if Valencia had not appealed the judgment. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Valencia therefore is not entitled to relief. See id. at 748.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cm. R. 47.5.4.