
    John W. MELTON, Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MEDICAL BRANCH BOYD UNIT; Texas Department of Criminal Justice Correctional Institutional Division Boyd Unit; Warden II, Boyd Unit Ben Brown; Captain Hortman; LSM III Connie Hill; Virginia Buchanan; Lvn Lynda Sanches, Defendants-Appellees.
    
      No. 06-51244
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Aug. 21, 2007.
    John W. Melton, Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division, Teague, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

John W. Melton, Texas prisoner # 1168128, has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. The magistrate judge denied Melton’s motion to appeal IFP and certified that the appeal was not taken in good faith. By moving for IFP, Melton is challenging the district court’s certification. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir.1997).

Failure to identify an error in the district court’s analysis is the same as if the appellant had not appealed the judgment. Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Athough pro se briefs are liberally construed, even pro se litigants must brief arguments in order to preserve them. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir.1993).

Melton offers only a conclusory assertion of perjured testimony at the Spears hearing to challenge the dismissal of his civil rights complaint. Melton has not shown that the magistrate judge’s determination that his appeal would be frivolous was incorrect. The instant appeal is without arguable merit and is thus frivolous. Accordingly, Melton’s request for IFP status is denied, and his appeal is dismissed. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-220 (5th Cir.1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Melton is reminded that he has three strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 385-87 (5th Cir.1996); Melton v. Livingston, 219 Fed.Appx. 338 (5th Cir.2007). Accordingly, he may not proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g). We caution Melton that further frivolous filings may result in additional sanctions against him.

IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     
      
      
        Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985).
     
      
       Melton consented to the magistrate judge entering the final judgment in this case. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
     