
    Huey GRANGER, Plaintiff-Appellant v. William Bill SLADE, Individually and In His Official Capacity as Chief of Police for the City of Pearl, MS; Keith Peterson, Individually and In His Official Capacity as Police Officer for the City of Pearl, MS; Jeff Thames, Individually and in his official capacity as a police officer for the City of Pearl, MS; Jack B. Brenemen; The City of Pearl, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 09-60646
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    March 22, 2010.
    Huey Granger, Pearl, MS, pro se.
    Gary Erwin Friedman, Mark D. Fijman, Phelps Dunbar, L.L.P., Jackson, MS, for William Slade, Keith Peterson, Jeff Thames, The City of Pearl.
    James A. Bobo, Akers & Bobo PLLC, Brandon, MS, for William Slade, Keith Peterson, Jeff Thames.
    J. Edward Rainer, Rainer Law Firm, Brandon, MS, for Jack B. Brenemen.
    Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Huey Granger appeals the jury verdict returned against him on August 27, 2009, in which the jury found that the settlement agreement he entered into with the City of Pearl and various police officers was enforceable against him. Granger’s brief consists of one paragraph, without citation to the evidence presented at trial or to relevant authorities.

Granger is proceeding pro se, and his pleadings are accordingly construed liberally. See United States v. Wilkes, 20 F.3d 651, 653 (5th Cir.1994). Under the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, an appellant’s brief must contain “appellant’s contentions and the reasons for them, with citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant relies.” See Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(9)(A). Such contentions and citations are required so that the court can determine if there is “sufficient evidentiary foundation” to hold that the district court committed error. United States v. Delgado-Martinez, 564 F.3d 750, 752 (5th Cir.2009) Even pro se appellants must reasonably comply with this requirement. See Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir.1995). Because Granger fails to properly argue or present issues in his appellate brief, we consider those issues to be abandoned. United States v. Beaumont, 972 F.2d 553, 563 (5th Cir.1992); Price v. Digital Equip. Corp., 846 F.2d 1026, 1028 (5th Cir.1988) (“ [Arguments must be briefed to be preserved.”). Because Granger has abandoned all issues on appeal, his appeal is without arguable merit. See Newsome v. EEOC, 301 F.3d 227, 233 (5th Cir.2002).

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.
     