Darren Biggers, Cooke County Jail inmate # 30620, appeals the district court’s dismissal with prejudice of his civil rights complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)® & (ii). Biggers has failed to set forth argument identifying error in the district court’s determination that his complaint was barred by the statute of limitations. Although pro se briefs are liberally construed, even pro se litigants must brief arguments to preserve them. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. *555 1993). When an appellant fails to identify error in the district court’s decision, it is as if the appellant had not appealed that judgment, and this court “will not raise and discuss legal issues that [Biggers] has failed to assert.” Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Biggers has abandoned any argument challenging the dismissal of his complaint on limitations grounds by failing to raise the issue on appeal. See Yohey, 985 F.2d at 224-25.

Biggers’s appeal is without arguable merit. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Therefore, the appeal is dismissed as frivolous. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. The dismissal of this appeal as frivolous counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), as does the district court’s dismissal of Biggers’s complaint. See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). Biggers is cautioned that, if he accumulates three strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), he will not be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.