Pro se plaintiff William H. Oliver appeals from the dismissal, much earlier in this proceeding, of all his claims relating to the defendants’ actions concerning Oliver’s former property following a foreclosure sale. Oliver’s brief, such as it is, consists of a short series of conclusory statements •without any legal or factual analysis. “Failure to provide any legal or factual analysis of an issue results in waiver.” 1 While we construe pro se briefs liberally, pro se plaintiffs are still required to adequately brief issues for review. 2 Accordingly, we dismiss Oliver’s appeal.

Defendant-appellee and cross-appellant Bill Skinner appeals from the district court’s judgment, following a bench trial, dismissing Skinner’s counterclaims, including abuse of process, attorney’s fees, costs, sanctions, and injunctive relief. As Skinner concedes in his brief, our review on these issues is for abuse of discretion, and our review of the facts is limited to clear error. 3 We find no abuse of discretion or clear error in any part of the district court’s order supporting its final judgment. 4 We specifically note that the district court granted Skinner’s motion for Rule 11 sanctions and imposed sanctions in *358 the amount of $250 against Oliver. 5 We will not upset this award.

Accordingly, we affirm the final judgment of the district court.