Louis Charles HAMILTON, II, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Willie M. ZANDERS, Attorney at Law; Walter A. Dennis; Rosemary Dennis, Defendants-Appellees, 463 F. App'x 244

PER CURIAM: The district court dismissed this action sua sponte as malicious. Because Mr. Hamilton has failed to present a nonfrivo-lous issue regarding the district court’s dismissal, we DISMISS his appeal as frivolous. Alternatively, we DISMISS the appeal because of the complete noncompliance of Mr. Hamilton’s brief with Rule 28 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4. . See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. . See Grant v.

Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir.1995) (per curiam) ("Although we liberally construe briefs of pro se litigants and apply less stringent standards to parties proceeding pro se than to parties represented by counsel, pro se parties must still brief the issues and reasonably comply with the standards of Rule 28.” (footnote omitted)).