IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-20977
Summary Calendar
MICHAEL A. MCCANN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
COUNTY OF BRAZORIA, Texas;
JACK PATTERSON, Commissioner;
JACK HARRIS, Commissioner; DAVID HEAD,
Commissioner; JIMMY CLAWSON, Commissioner;
JOHN WILLY, Judge, Commissioner’s
Court, Brazoria County Courthouse; MIKE LOPEZ,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-97-CV-370
--------------------
November 3, 1999
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Michael A. McCann appeals the district court’s summary-
judgment dismissal of his civil rights lawsuit against Brazoria
County, Texas, Deputy Sheriff Mike Lopez. McCann does not
challenge the district court’s determination that it was not
unreasonable for Lopez to have conducted a strip search based on
the facts as pleaded by McCann, nor does he contend that summary
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 98-20977
-2-
judgment was error. Accordingly, those arguments are waived.
See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.
1993)(arguments not briefed on appeal are deemed abandoned); Fed.
R. App. P. 28(a). McCann has also waived the argument that the
district court violated his due-process rights because the
argument is inadequately briefed. See id.; blue brief, 5-6.
McCann’s contention that the district court judge erred in
refusing to grant his motion for recusal is without merit because
he has not identified any extrajudicial bias on the district
court’s part. See United States v. MMR Corp., 954 F.2d 1040,
1044-46 (5th Cir. 1992); Levitt v. University of Texas at El
Paso, 847 F.2d 221, 226 (5th Cir. 1988). McCann also argues that
the district court erred in refusing to hold an evidentiary
hearing on the recusal motion, but he is incorrect: the district
court in fact held a hearing on the motion.
McCann additionally argues that Brazoria County tampered
with its strip-search records and that Lopez perjured himself.
To the extent that McCann complains that Brazoria County
attempted to evade a lawsuit by hiding Lopez’s identity, the
argument is irrelevant. Brazoria County is no longer a party to
this lawsuit, and, even if it is assumed that Brazoria County was
not forthcoming regarding Lopez’s identity, the question is moot
because McCann discovered Lopez’s identity and was able to file
the present lawsuit against him in a timely manner. McCann’s
conclusional argument that Lopez perjured himself is insufficient
to withstand summary judgment. See Little v. Liquid Air Corp.,
37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994)(en banc).
No. 98-20977
-3-
AFFIRMED.