The magistrate warned Nails that failure to attend her own deposition would result in her case being dismissed. When Nails did not show up for her deposition, the magistrate issued a show cause order for why her case should not be dismissed. Nails said that she had refused to attend her own deposition because the defendant would not pay Nails a per diem or reimburse her travel expenses. The district court found no authority to support the argument that a party to a case is entitled to payment for attending her own deposition, and therefore the district court dismissed the case with prejudice.

Liberally construing Nails’s brief, she has challenged the conclusion that she is not entitled to be paid for attending her own deposition. However, she has not provided any argument or authority to show that the district court’s conclusion is erroneous. “On appeal, we require appellants to not only state their contentions to us, but also to give the reasons for them, with citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant relies.” Doe v. Moore, 410 F.3d 1337, 1349 (11th Cir. 2005) (quotations omitted).

AFFIRMED.