United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT September 23, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-40095
Summary Calendar
JESUS MENDOZA MALDONADO,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. M-03-CV-38
--------------------
Before REAVLEY, WIENER and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jesus Mendoza Maldonado appeals from the dismissal of his
complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i),
arguing that his motion to recuse the magistrate judge was
erroneously denied. We affirm.
Maldonado’s argument that the magistrate judge was without
authority to refer the motion to recuse to the district judge is
frivolous; if the issue of a judge recusing herself arises either
through a motion to recuse under § 455 or an affidavit of
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 04-40095
-2-
prejudice under § 144, the judge has the option to either
transfer the matter to another judge for decision or determine it
herself. See Doddy v. Oxy USA, Inc., 101 F.3d 448, 458 n.7 (5th
Cir. 1996).
Maldonado’s motion for recusal was based solely on
conclusional allegations of prejudice stemming from adverse
rulings. Adverse judicial rulings alone, however, do not support
an allegation of bias under 28 U.S.C. §§ 455 or 144, and,
therefore, the denial of the motion was not an abuse of
discretion. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555
(1994); Matassarin v. Lynch, 174 F.3d 549, 571 (5th Cir. 1999).
Maldonado did not raise in his initial brief the ultimate issue
whether his claims lacked an arguable basis in fact, and,
therefore, that issue is not considered. See Cinel v. Connick,
15 F.3d 1338, 1345 (5th Cir. 1994). Furthermore, as the
magistrate judge pointed out in her report of July 14, 2003, no
causal connection is set forth, or is conceivable, between
Maldonado’s electromagnetic hypersensitivity and the Attorney
General of the United States.
AFFIRMED.