PER CURIAM: Dannie Ray Hayward, Sr., former Louisiana prisoner # 301013, appeals the grant of
summary judgment to the defendants and appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. In his complaint, Hayward alleged violations of his civil rights relating to the medical care he received and retaliation by staff while he was housed in the Forcht Wade Correctional Center. The district court determined that Hayward failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, denied Hayward’s motion for
summary judgment, granted the defendants’ cross-motion for
summary judgment, and dismissed Hayward’s complaint. We review the grant of a motion for
summary judgment de novo. Dillon v. Rogers, 596 F.3d 260, 266 (5th Cir.2010). However, Hayward’s arguments regarding the sole issue on appeal, the administrative exhaustion of his claims, are minimal and entirely conclusory, without any citation to the record or any law. Although we apply less stringent standards to parties proceeding pro se than to counsel-represented parties and liberally construe briefs of pro se litigants, pro se parties must still brief the issues. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir.1993).
The appellant’s brief must contain an argument, which in turn must contain his “contentions and the reasons for them, with citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant relies.” Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(9); see Yohey, 985 F.2d at 225. Because Hayward has not briefed an argument as to the district court’s reason for dismissing his complaint, he has abandoned the issue on appeal. See Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 373 n. 6 (5th Cir.2005).
Hayward has similarly abandoned a challenge, by failing to brief the issue, to the district court’s decision to strike his motion to amend his complaint to add new claims against new defendants at Dixon Correctional Center. See Geiger, 404 F.3d at 373 n. 6. To the extent that the defendants assert that Dennis Richardson is not a proper party to this appeal, although he moved, with the other defendants through the same counsel, for
summary judgment, the assertion is without merit. See Fed. R. Civ. PROC. 5(b)(1), La.Rev.Stat. ANN. § 13:5108.1 (2008); Ellibee v. Leonard, 226 Fed.Appx. 351, 357-58 (5th Cir.2007). The judgment of the district court granting
summary judgment to all of the defendants and dismissing Hayward’s complaint is 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 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.