
    Juanita Perez HERNANDEZ; Daniel Montes, Jr., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Claire Louise Bourgoise GRUBBS, et al., Defendants, Claire Louise Bourgoise Grubbs; Richard J. Bourgoise; Martin J. Bourgoise; Jake’s Department Store, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 03-30746.
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Dec. 9, 2003.
    Juanita Perez Hernandez, pro se, Daniel Montes, Jr., pro se, San Marcos, TX, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
    Mitchell J. Hoffman, Marynell Lapuyade Piglia, Lowe, Stein, Hoffman, Allweiss & Hauver, New Orleans, LA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM

Juanita Perez Hernandez and Daniel Montes, Jr. (collectively, Appellants), have appealed, pro se, the district court’s summary-judgment dismissal of their civil rights lawsuit. The Appellants acknowledge that the district court correctly held that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not provide a jurisdictional basis for their claims, but they argue that they should have been given an opportunity to amend their complaint to state a valid cause of action. They further argue that the entry of summary judgment was error because of the existence of unidentified genuine issues of material fact relative to the validity of their claims.

Although this court applies less stringent standards to parties proceeding pro se than to litigants, pro se parties must still brief the issues and reasonably comply with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 28. Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir.1995). The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure require the parties to provide references to the page number of the record to support statements of fact. Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(7) and (9)(A) (2002); 5th Cir. R. 28.2.3; Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224 (5th Cir.1993). As the Appellants have failed to comply with these requirements, we do not consider their arguments. The appeal is frivolous, and it is dismissed. Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.
     