Gregory D. Rowe moves this court for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in this appeal from the district court’s dismissal of his discrimination suit for failure to prosecute. Rowe failed to pay the filing fee after the district court determined that he should not be granted IFP status because Rowe had abused the IFP process by providing inconsistent information in his IFP declarations and filing frivolous suits in the past.

Rowe’s motion for IFP fails to address the district court’s rationale for dismissing the suit. Although this court liberally construes pro se briefs, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d *697 652 (1972), even pro se litigants must brief arguments in order to preserve them. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1998). By failing to discuss the district court’s rationale for dismissing his complaint, Rowe has abandoned the issue, and it is the same as if he had not appealed the judgment. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).

Because Rowe has failed to demonstrate that he will raise a nonfrivolous issue on appeal, his motion to proceed IFP is denied. See Fed. R.App. P. 24(a); Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982). The appeal is without merit and is dismissed as frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

MOTION FOR IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.