* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-30342

Summary Calendar

WILLIAM C. RICHARDSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CHARLES F. SCHOLZ; JOHN DOE, I & II; DON HATHAWAY;

PAUL CARMOUCHE; POWELL A. LAYTON; DON ASHLEY;

FRANK H. THAXTON, III; DOUGLAS W. FREESE, JR.; DONNIE

ROWAN; ROBERT ODINET; RICHARD IEYOUB; SHERRIE

STROTHER; MARCUS C. WILLIAMS; JOHN SELLS, Chief;

JOSEPH DRAPER, Lieutenant; NFN GRAY, Deputy; SHERRIE

LOWE; FLORA G. JONES; ALAN G. POTTS; JAMIE McLAMB;

YVONNE ROOFNER; STEPHEN PRATOR; J.T. MULLER;

T.W. OSTER,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

(96-CV-1778)

September 8, 1999

Before POLITZ, HIGGINBOTHAM, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

POLITZ, Circuit Judge: *

Will i am C. Richardson, a Louisiana prisoner, appeals the district court’s

summary judgment in favor of the defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights1 New York Life Ins. Co. v. Travelers Ins. Co. , 92 F.3d 336 (5th Cir. 1996).

2 See Mays v. Sudderth , 97 F.3d 107 (5th Cir. 1996).

3 See Kerr v. Lyford , 171 F.3d 330 (5th Cir. 1999).

2 action. We review d e novo the grant of summary judgment, applying the same

standard as the district court. 1 For the reasons assigned, we affirm.

Richardson first contends that the district court erred in granting a summary

judgment in favor of Judge Frank H. Thaxton, III conce rning his claim that the

search warrant issued by Judge Thaxton was illegal. Judge Thaxton is entitled to

absolute judicial immu n ity; the district court did not err in granting a summary

judgment on this claim. 2

Richardson next contends that the district court erred in dismissing his claim

that Caddo District Attorney Paul Carmouche, Assistant District Attorney Powell

Layton , investigator Don Ashley, Louisiana Attorney General Richard Ieyoub, and

Assistant Attorneys General Douglas Freese, Donnie Rowan, and Robert Odinet

conspired to obtain a search warrant illegally and exceeded the scope of the search

warrant. These defendants are entitled to prosecutorial immunity; the district

court’s grant of summary judgment was not in error. 3

Third, Richardson contends that the district c ourt erred in dismissing his

claim that the Shreveport Police Chief Stephen Prator and Officers Jimmy Muller

and T.W. Oster intimidated witnesses and Richardson’s relative and that they

altered witnesses’s statements. The claim that these defendants intimidated

witnesses in April and May 1994 is prescribe d; the challenged actions allegedly4 See Davis v. Louisiana State Univ. , 876 F.2d 412 (5th Cir. 1989).

5 See Little v. Liquid Air Corp. , 37 F.3d 1069 (5th Cir. 1994)(en banc).

6 See id. at 1075.

7 See Lewis v. Casey , 518 U.S. 343 (1996).

3 occurred over one year before Richardson filed his complaint on May 9, 1996. 4

Richardson’s affidavit filed with his opposition to the motion for summary

judgment merely repeats his conclusional allegations, and such allegations are not

sufficient to establish a genuine issue of material fact. 5 Therefore, the district court

did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of these defendants.

Fourth, Richardson asserts that the district court erred in dismissing his claim

that the Caddo Parish Sheriff’s Department employees conspired to obtain an

illegal search warrant and exceeded the scope of the warrant. Again, his affidavit

merely repeats conclusional allegations and does not present competent evidence

that these defendants conspired to obtain a search warrant illegal ly or that they

exceeded the scope of the warrant. 6

Fifth, Richardson maintains that the distri ct court erred in dismissing his

claim that the Sheriff’s Department employees denied him access to the courts by

intentionally withholding his legal mail for several days, resulting in his medical

malpractice lawsuit ultimately being dismissed as untimely. The constitutionally

protected right of access to the courts does not extend beyond the right to challenge

a conviction, sentence, or the conditions of confinement and the district court did

not err in dismissing this claim. 78 See Little , 37 F.3d at 1075.

9 See United States v. MMR Corp. , 954 F.2d 1040 (5th Cir. 1992).

10 See Briddle v. Scott , 63 F.3d 364 (5th Cir. 1995).

4 Richardson next contends that the district court erred in dismissing his claim

that the Sheriff’s D epartment employees gave certain unspecified legal information

obtained from his legal mail to prosecutors. These allegations are conclusional and

insufficient to establish a genuine issue of material fact; there was no error in their

dismissal. 8

Sevent h

, Richardson asserts that the district court abused its discretion in

denying his motion to re c use the magistrate judge. Richardson offered no

competent evid ence that the magistrate judge had a personal, extrajudicial bias.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to recuse the

magistrate judge. Adverse rulings, without more, are not sufficient to support a

recusal motion. 9

E ighth, Richardson claims that the district court abused its discret ion in

denying his motion to amend his complaint to add new defendants. This motion

was filed after the district court had enter ed a summary judgment in favor of all

defendants except the Sheriff’s Department emp loyees. In denying same the

district court did not abuse its discretion. 10

Finally, Richardson contends that the district court erred in staying discovery

until it ruled on the motion for summary judgment filed by the Sheriff’s

Department employees and the Caddo Parish District Attorney and em ployees.11 See International Shortstop, Inc. v. Rally’s, Inc. , 939 F.2d 1257 (5th Cir. 1991).

5 Richardson suggest s only vague assertions that additional discovery would have

produced discrepancies of fact. The district court did not err in staying discovery. 1 1

AFFIRMED.