
    L.F. by next friend of Mary RUFFIN, Plaintiff-Appellant v. HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT; Dillard, Hearing Officer, Defendants-Appellees L.F. by next friend of Mary Ruffin, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Luecretia Dillard, Hearing Officer, Defendant-Appellee L.F. by next friend of Mary Ruffin, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Houston Independent School District; Luecretia Dillard, Defendants-Appellees Mary Ruffin, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Tonya Lee; Taieka Derrick, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 12-20444
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Oct. 24, 2013.
    Mary Ruffin, Houston, TX, pro se.
    Jeffrey L. Rogers, Amy Joyce Cumings Tucker, Rogers, Morris & Grover, L.L.P., Houston, TX, Scot MacDonald Graydon, Peter B. Plotts, III, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Austin, TX, Defendant-Appellee.
    Before WIENER, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff-Appellant L.F., by next friend of Mary Ruffin, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, appeals the district court’s dismissal of her Individuals with Disabilities Education Act complaints that challenged actions by the Houston Independent School District, Tonya Lee, Taieka Derrick, and Luecretia Dillard. On appeal, Ruffin has failed to provide any comprehensible legal arguments that credibly challenge the detailed analyses and conclusions set forth in the district court’s decisions. Although we apply less stringent standards to parties proceeding pro se than to those represented by counsel, and we liberally construe briefs of pro se litigants, such parties must still brief the issues substantively and reasonably comply with the requirements of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28. See Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir.1995). As Ruffin has failed to provide any coherent argument demonstrating reversible error by the district court, see id.; Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir.1993), we affirm the ruling of the district court.

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     