
    James K. CHAMBERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. A-AVALON CORRECTIONS SERVICES, INCORPORATED; Southern Corrections, Incorporated; L. Serrano, Administrator, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 15-11113 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Date Filed: 08/09/2016
    James K, Chambers, Houston, TX, Pro Se.
    Michael K. Dean, Ray, McChristian & Jeans, P.C., Fort Worth, TX, Daniel H. Hernandez, Ray, McChristian & Jeans, P.C., El Paso, TX.
    Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuif. Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

James K. Chambers has filed an interlocutory appeal in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action challenging the district court’s partial grant of summary judgment in favor of Avalon Corrections Services, Incorporated (“Avaion”) and Southern Corrections, Incorporated (“Southern”). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). He also challenges the district court’s denial of a restraining order against Avalon, Southern, and their employee, L. Serrano. Finally, he seeks an injunction pending appeal.

In his appellate brief, Chambers does not address the district court’s dismissal of his claims against Avalon and Southern. He does not address the district court’s conclusion that Chambers failed to identify an unconstitutional policy or custom; instead, he rehashes his claim that Serrano violated his constitutional rights by denying him medical treatment. He likewise does not address the district court’s denial of his request for a temporary restraining order.

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 claims against Avalon and Southern and the denial of a temporary restraining order, these claims are abandoned.

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R, 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th CIR.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