Summary Calendar MAXINE NICHOLSON v. Spring Sand & Clay Lp

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
May 29, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
06-20202
Summary Calendar
MAXINE NICHOLSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SPRING SAND & CLAY LP,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, Houston
4:04-cv-01601
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appellant appeals pro se from a jury verdict in favor of her
employer in a discrimination case. Appellant points to no error.
There is no legal argument or citation in the brief—only general
conclusions. Although this Court liberally construes the briefs of
pro se appellants, we also require that arguments be briefed to be
preserved. Price v. Digital Equip. Corp., 846 F.2d 1026, 1028 (5th

-- 1 of 2 --

2
Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). Accordingly, Appellant has
abandoned her arguments by failing to argue them in the body of her
brief. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993)
(citing Fed.R.App.P. 28(a)(4)).
In addition, to the extent her brief reflects her
disappointment with counsel, the Sixth Amendment right to counsel
does not apply to civil proceedings. Sanchez v. United States
Postal Serv., 785 F.2d 1236, 1237 (5th Cir. 1986).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --