PER CURIAM:
Proceeding pro se, Rose Ann Juarez appeals the district court’s dismissal of her action seeking, inter alia, to enjoin the foreclosure of her property after she defaulted on her mortgage payments. The district court dismissed all of Juarez’s claims pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) upon concluding that they were barred by res judicata in light of her previous lawsuit that involved substantially the same parties and the same transaction. In addition, the district court concluded that Juarez’s complaint had failed to allege sufficient facts stating a plausible claim against Reunion given that Reunion “was not a party to the mortgage, did not receive title to the Property, was not a payee, or the seller or lender of the Property, or a beneficiary to the deed of trust.”
In her brief on appeal, Juarez identifies no error in the district court’s reasoning that her claims were barred by res judica-ta or that her complaint failed to state a claim against Reunion. Although we must liberally construe the briefs of pro se litigants, “pro se parties must still brief the issues and reasonably comply with the standards- of Rule 28.” Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir.1995). Given her failure to adequately identify any error in the district court’s decision, Juarez’s brief does not comply with the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Toala v. Marriott White Lodging Corporate, 456 Fed.Appx. 476, 477 (5th Cir.2012). Therefore, we DISMISS the appeal for want of prosecution. See id.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4,