
    In the MATTER OF: Clovis PRINCE, Debtor Clovis Prince, Appellant v. Michelle Chow; Wayne Stone; Larry Alan Levick; Todd Alan Hoodenpyle; Matthew M. Ryan, Appellees Clovis Prince Appellant v. Michelle H. Chow, Trustee; Wayne Stone; Matthew M. Ryan, Appellees
    No. 16-41158
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed August 4, 2017
    Clovis Prince, Pro Se
    Todd Alan Hoodenpyle, Singer & Lev-ick, P.C., Addison, TX, for Appellees Michelle Chow, Larry Alan Levick, Todd Alan Hoodenpyle
    Stephen Wilson Elliott, Clayton D. Ket-ter, Esq., G. David Bryant, Phillips Mur-rah, P.C., Oklahoma City, OK, for Appellee Wayne Stone
    Stephen Wilson Elliott, Clayton D. Ket-ter, Esq,, Phillips Murrah, P.C., Oklahoma City, OK, for Appellee Matthew M. Ryan
    Before JOLLY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Clovis Prince moves to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the district court’s dismissal of his consolidated appeals from the bankruptcy court’s orders of dismissal entered in two adversary proceedings. He is challenging the district court’s certification that his appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).

Prince’s conclusional assertions of error by the district court, without citation to the record or cogent legal argument, do not show that his appeal involves legal points arguable on their merits and that it is not frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (6th Cir. 1983). Although pro se briefs are liberally construed, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 662 (1972), even pro se litigants must brief arguments in order to preserve them, Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, Prince has not shown any error in the dismissal of his consolidated appeals from the bankruptcy court on account of his failure to pay the filing fees. Nor has he shown any error in the district court’s determination that his claims are in essence a collateral attack on the valid and binding summary judgment issued by the bankruptcy court, avoiding the fraudulent transfers of certain real property.

Because the district court did not err in determining that the appeal was not taken in good faith, the motion to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202. As Prince’s appeal is without arguable merit, see Howard, 707 F.2d at 220, it is DISMISSED as frivolous, see 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Prince’s alternative request to withdraw his appeal without prejudice is DENIED. The motion to dismiss, incorporated in the response filed by Wayne Stone and Matthew M. Ryan, is DENIED as unnecessary. 
      
       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.
     