Donald Ray Alexander appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for a new trial. Alexander does not challenge the district court’s determination that his motion for a new trial was not filed timely. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(b).

We apply less stringent standards to parties proceeding pro se than to parties represented by counsel, and we liberally construe the briefs of pro se litigants; however, pro se parties must still brief the issues and reasonably comply with the requirements of Fed. R.App. P. 28. Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995). When an appellant fails to identify any error in the district court’s analysis, it is the same as if the appellant had not appealed that judgment. Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). “Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)[ (9)(A) ] requires that the appellant’s argument contain the reasons he deserves the requested relief with citation to the authorities, statutes and parts of the record relied on.” Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993).

Because Alexander does not address the district court’s reason for denying his new trial motion, he has abandoned the only issue on appeal. Brinkmann, 813 F.2d at 748. Alexander’s appeal is without arguable merit and, therefore, is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Alexander is warned that further frivolous filings in this court will subject him to sanctions.

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.