Billie Jean VERDI, on behalf of Danny Lynn (McCreary) VERDI, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CLAY COUNTY; Wichita County; Jimmy Weddel, Deputy; Danny Mahler; Lanny Evans, Reserve Deputy; Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences; Davis Funeral Home; Texas Department of Regulatory and Protective Services; Texas Department of Public Safety; Jim Humphrey; Tim Cole, District Attorney; Jack Maga, Assistant City Attorney; Dan Hines; Robert Krebs; Ray Adams; Roger M. Fossum; Charles S. Petty; Larry Duncan; Jake Bogard; Texas Rangers; Department of Public Safety; Randy R. Schenk; Wichita Falls Independent School District; Baptist Memorial Hospital System; Wichita Falls Police Department; G.P. Dowling; Patrick Besant; M.G. Gilliland; Nina Hollander, Defendants-Appellees, 217 F. App'x 386

PER CURIAM: Billie Jean Verdi, appearing pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal of her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint, in which she sought to obtain records and other relief relating to the 1985 death of her son, Danny Lynn Verdi. Verdi’s brief fails to address the basis for the district court’s dismissal of her suit, which was want of prosecution based on her failure to pay the filing fee as ordered. Her brief addresses only the merits of her various claims and seeks various forms of relief from this court. Accordingly, she has abandoned the only ground for appeal. See Yohey v.

Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993); Brinkmann v. Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.1987). Although pro se briefs are afforded a liberal construction, even pro se litigants must brief arguments in order to preserve them. See Yohey, 985 F.2d at 225. Given her failure to brief the basis of the district court’s ruling, we dismiss the appeal as frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Verdi’s motion for appointment of counsel, motion for immediate court order seeking return of certain records, and motion for emergency court order, are denied as moot.

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 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.