Johnny Swank, Louisiana prisoner # 438338, an inmate at B.B. Rayburn Correctional Center (Rayburn) and a follower of the Wiccan faith, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action against Robert C. Tanner, Warden of Rayburn. Swank argued that Tanner violated his First Amendment rights by confiscating religious items needed to practice his Wiccan faith and violated the Equal Protection Clause by treating Wiccans differently than followers of other religions. The magistrate judge, ruling by consent of the parties, granted Tanner’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that the restrictions on religious objects did not violate Swank’s First Amendment rights under Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987), because the policies were supported by nonpretextual security concerns, because those concerns represented a legitimate governmental interest, and because the policies were rational and logically related to officials’ concerns. Additionally, the magistrate judge found that there was no evidence that the policies operated in a fashion that was not neutral. As to Swank’s Fourteenth Amendment claims, the magistrate judge determined that the prison policies did not violate Swank’s right to equal protection because “the prison policies in question satisfy Turner’s, requirement, little or no evidence has been offered showing that similarly situated faiths are afforded superior treatment, and no evidence establishes that the policies were the product of purposeful discrimination.”

Swank now appeals, arguing only that Tanner is a proper party to his suit and liable for the implementation of policies relating to religious items, and further but conclusorily, that the unjustified deprivation of prisoners’ religious items violates the First Amendment. Swank identified no error in the magistrate judge’s grant of summary judgment and dismissal of his claims. Although pro se briefs are liberally construed, even pro se litigants must brief arguments in order to preserve them. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). Failure to identify any error in the district court’s analysis is the same as if the appellant had not appealed the judgment. Brinkmann v. Dallas County Dep *478 uty Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.