Bryant v. Orndorff ( 2006 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 28, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-10681
Conference Calendar
DONALD S. BRYANT, JR., a married person;
LINDA M. BRYANT, a married person,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
MICHAEL ORNDORFF, FBI Agent,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:05-CV-102
--------------------
Before DAVIS, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Donald S. Bryant, Jr., and Linda M. Bryant (the Bryants)
appeal from the order denying their motion for the district court
to recuse itself and from the order dismissing their Bivens v.
Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S.
388 (1971), action and imposing sanctions pursuant to FED. R. CIV.
P. 11. Adverse rulings alone do not call into question a
district judge’s impartiality. Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S.
540, 556 (1994). The Bryants’ recusal argument relies on the
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
No. 05-10681
-2-
district court’s previous rulings; the denial of their recusal
motion therefore was not an abuse of discretion. See United
States v. Mizell, 88 F.3d 288, 299 (5th Cir. 1996).
In addition to their recusal argument, the Bryants reurge
their constitutional arguments and question FBI Agent Michael
Orndorff’s entitlement to qualified immunity. They state that
the district court violated their civil rights by finding the
lawsuit to be frivolous because Orndorff is bound by the
Constitution. They do not argue that the district court’s res
judicata analysis was erroneous, and they do not challenge the
imposition of sanctions against them. The Bryants have failed to
brief the dispositive issues for appeal. Brinkmann v. Dallas
County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).
APPEAL DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.