
    Elisha Genaro DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Johnny B. HOLMES, District Attorney of Harris County, Texas, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 11-20529
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Feb. 28, 2012.
    Elisha Genaro Davis,. Huntsville, TX, pro se.
    Before BENAVIDES, STEWART, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Elisha Genaro Davis, Texas prisoner # 1571246, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failing to state a claim. Davis’s complaint was based on his 2009 guilty plea conviction for possession with intent to deliver cocaine. Davis alleged that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated by the consideration of certain prior convictions for enhancement purposes.

On appeal, Davis fails to adequately challenge the basis of the district court’s decision as to the dismissal of his claims. He asserts only conclusory statements. Although this court liberally construes pro se briefs, this court requires arguments to be briefed in order to be preserved. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.1993). Because Davis has failed to identify an error in the district court’s dismissal of his claims, Davis has waived these issues on appeal, and this court need not address them. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.1987).

Because the appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous, see Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.1983), it is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. This dismissal counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), as does the district court’s dismissal. See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir.1996). We caution Davis that- if he accumulates three strikes, he will not be permitted to proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g). 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     