
    James K. CHAMBERS, Plaintiff-Appellant v. TARRANT COUNTY; Tarrant County Hospital District, Defendants-Appellees
    No. 15-10985 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Date Filed: 08/10/2016
    James K. Chambers, Pro Se.
    Russell A. Friemel, Esq., Assistant District Attorney, District Attorney’s Office for the County of Tarrant, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before SMITH, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

James K. Chambers has appealed the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and the denial of his motion for emergency relief. He also seeks an injunction pending his appeal and requests the appointment of counsel.

In his appellate brief, Chambers' does not address the district court’s dismissal of his claims against Tarrant County and the Tarrant County Hospital District. He simply restates on appeal that he was denied proper medical care and that jail staff interfered with his litigating his pending federal lawsuits, but he does not show how or why the district court erred in dismissing his claims. He also fails to challenge or even mention the district court’s denial of his motion for emergency relief.

When an appellant fails to identify any error in the district court’s analysis, it is the same as if the appellant had not appealed that issue. Brinkmann v. Dallas Cty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Although pro se briefs are afforded liberal construction, arguments must be briefed in order to be preserved. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Because Chambers fails to raise any argument regarding the district court’s dismissal of his § 1988 lawsuit and the denial of his request for emergency relief, these claims are abandoned. See id.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED, and the motions for injunc-tive relief pending appeal and for the appointment of counsel are DENIED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     