Marshall Home, federal prisoner # 56200-008, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to reconsider and the denial of his supplemental motion to reconsider. Through these motions, Home sought to have the district court reopen the civil proceeding filed by Margaret Elizabeth Broderick-Home, formerly federal prisoner # 07018-112, and allow Home to substitute as the plaintiff. Following Bro-derick-Home’s death, the district court had dismissed Broderick-Home’s case without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a)(1), as no party or successor or representative of Broderick-Home’s estate filed a motion to substitute within 90 days of her death.

Home has failed to brief any challenge to the reasons for the district court’s denial of his motion for reconsideration and his supplemental motion. Although pro se briefs are afforded liberal construction, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 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. 1993). Because Home has failed to brief the only issue for appeal, he has abandoned any arguments regarding the denial of his motions. See id,.; see also Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.