PER CURIAM: James W. Green appeals the district court’s judgment granting the defendants’ motion for sanctions and dismissing Green’s claims for want of prosecution. On appeal, Green argues the merits of his underlying claims but fails to provide any legal arguments or authority challenging the district court’s determinations to grant defendants’ motion for sanctions and to dismiss his claims for failure to prosecute. Although pro se briefs are afforded liberal construction, Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (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). Because Green fails to address the district court’s basis for dismissing his claims, he has abandoned these issues. See Yohey, 985 F.2d at 224-25. The district court judgment is AFFIRMED.
Green’s motions for leave to file a supplemental brief, to enjoin ongoing fiduciary violations, to take notice of post-judgment data from another federal agency, relating to appellant’s motion to enjoin fiduciary violations, and to borrow certain records from archives are DENIED. All of Green’s motions are DENIED. Appellees’ amended motion for sanctions and an injunction is DENIED. However, Green is WARNED that any future frivolous appeals filed by him or on his behalf will invite the imposition of sanctions.
He should therefore review any pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are frivolous. Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.