United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT December 23, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
No. 05-20256 Clerk
Summary Calendar
JIM AMIR MOLIN, also known as Bendavid,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
HARRIS COUNTY JAIL; J. W. HUGHES, Deputy; KELLY, Doctor;
BOETIGER, Deputy; J. LEWIS, Deputy; RIED, Sergeant,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
No. 4:05-CV-61
--------------------
Before SMITH, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jim Molin appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Molin contends that the defen-
dants used excessive force against him on numerous occasions and
were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical conditions.
On appeal, Molin summarily reiterates his allegations that he
*
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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circum-
stances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
was assaulted by Deputy Lewis on March 26, 2003, and by “officers”
in May and August 2003. Molin alleges that, despite his requests
for medical treatment, defendants failed to provide treatment for
over two weeks.
Molin provides no analysis of the district court’s reasoning
or citations to any authority in support of his bare assertions
that the court erred in dismissing his claims; he merely disagrees
with the court’s conclusions related to his deliberate indifference
claims. Essentially, Molin’s brief does little more than state
that he was given the wrong or delayed treatment and was repeatedly
assaulted, though he admits he cannot prove the assaults.
Although pro se briefs are liberally construed, even pro se
litigants must brief arguments to preserve them. Yohey v. Collins,
985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Molin’s brief fails to sat-
isfy the requirements of FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(9), which requires an
argument, with “contentions and the reasons for them, with ci-
tations to the authorities and parts of the record on which the
appellant relies” and “for each issue, a concise statement of the
applicable standard of review.”
General arguments giving only broad standards of review and
not citing to specific errors are insufficient to preserve issues
for appeal. Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813
F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Moreover, when an appellant fails
to identify error in the district court’s decision, it is as if he
had not appealed that judgment. Id. This court “will not raise
and discuss legal issues that . . . [Molin] has failed to assert.”
Id.
Under the standard set forth in Brinkmann and Yohey, Molin has
not adequately briefed any issue for this court’s review. His ap-
peal has no arguable merit and is frivolous. See Howard v. King,
707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). It is therefore DISMISSED.
See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
The dismissal of this appeal as frivolous counts as a strike
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), as does the district court’s dismissal
of the complaint. See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 385-88
(5th Cir. 1996). Molin is CAUTIONED that if he accumulates three
strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), he will not be able to proceed
in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is
incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under im-
minent danger of serious physical injury.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.