
    Alton R. MACKEY, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Shirley LEE, Investigator, Terry County Sheriffs Department; Jerry L. Johnson, as Sheriff of Terry County; Roy Rice, Chief of Police of Brownfield, Texas, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 08-10401
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    June 16, 2009.
    
      Alton R. Mackey, Brownfield, TX, pro se.
    Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Alton R. Mackey appeals the district court’s dismissal of his pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint in.which he alleged that the defendants conspired to have him falsely arrested and convicted on drug charges. Mackey was on parole following his 15-year sentence for delivery of a controlled substance at the time he filed the instant § 1983 complaint.

The district court determined that Mackey’s claims were barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), because Mackey had failed to satisfy the favorable termination requirement enunciated in Heck. Although Mackey asserts that the district court’s decision was “erroneous” and that he should be granted an eviden-tiary hearing, Mackey does not discuss how the district court’s determination was erroneous nor. does he challenge the district court’s determination that he failed to satisfy the Heck requirement.

This court will not raise and discuss legal issues that an appellant has failed to assert. Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.1987); see Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir.1995) (emphasizing that although pro se briefs are construed liberally, pro se parties must still brief the issues and reasonably comply with Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)). Issues not adequately argued in the body of the brief are deemed abandoned. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.1993). By failing to challenge the district court’s determination or to identify any error in the district court’s order regarding his claims for relief, Mackey has abandoned his claims on appeal. See id.; Brinkmann, 813 F.2d at 748 (noting that the failure to identify any error in the court’s analysis is the same as if the appellant had not appealed the judgment).

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       Pursuant to 5th Cut R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     