PER CURIAM:
Mayford Kenneth Davis, Jr., proceeding pro se, appeals the court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). His complaint seeks, inter alia, damages against the prosecutor and two police-officer witnesses at the trial resulting in his conviction, pursuant to Texas Penal Code § 42.01(a)(10), for indecency arising out of an incident of nude sunbathing at a middle school.
On appeal, however, Davis does not address Heck. Instead, he reasserts the merits of his contentions without referencing any specific error by the court. Although pro se briefs are liberally construed, even pro se litigants must brief contentions in order to preserve, them. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). Because Davis has not identified any error in the court’s analysis and determinations, or even mentioned any possible appellate issues, he has abandoned them. See Brinkmann v. Dallas Cty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47,5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.