
    Felicia Nicole JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant v. CITIMORTGAGE, INC.; Pioneer Homes; Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General United States Postal Service, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 11-20643
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    April 20, 2012.
    Felicia N. Jones, Houston, TX, pro se.
    Before KING, JOLLY, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Felicia Nicole Jones has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in this appeal of the district court’s dismissal with prejudice of her pro se complaint. Jones also has filed a motion requesting a telephone hearing. The district court dismissed her complaint on the ground that she did not describe a claim recognized at law. We construe the district court’s dismissal as a dismissal as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii).

Jones has failed to address the district court’s rationale for dismissing her claims against Citimortgage, Inc., or her claims against Pioneer Homes. Although we liberally construe pro se filings, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972), even pro se litigants must raise arguments in order to preserve them, Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.1993). By failing to discuss the district court’s rationale for dismissing these claims, Jones has abandoned them. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.1987). Although Jones provides some discussion in her brief regarding her claim against the United States Postal Service, Jones has inadequately briefed this issue as well. See Yohey, 985 F.2d at 224-25; Brinkmann, 813 F.2d at 748.

Because Jones has failed to demonstrate that she will raise a nonfrivolous issue on appeal, her motion for leave to proceed IFP is denied. See Fed. R.App. P. 24(a); Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir.1982). Her motion requesting a telephone hearing also is denied. The appeal is without arguable merit, see Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.1983), and it is dismissed as frivolous. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     