* Pursuant to 5 T H 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 96-20785

Summary Calendar

__________________

DONALD ALAN FRIDDELL,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

RANDY GATEWOOD, Officer; STEVE BORGEO, Officer; JOHNNY

KLEVENHAGEN; HARRIS COUNTY TEXAS; EL FRANCO LEE, Commissioner;

JIM FONTENO, Commissioner; STEVE RADACK, Commissioner;

JERRY EVERSOLE, Commissioner; ROBERT ECKELS, Commissioner;

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; J.R. KOPIDLANSKY, IRS Director;

BILLY K. MARTIN, IRS Agent; KEN FREELOW, IRS Agent; STAN

TRUEHART, IRS Agent; RON OLIVER, IRS Agent; RAGINA ORTIGO,

IRS Agent; ROBERT SIMPSON, IRS Agent; ROSYLYN MAZE, IRS Agent;

ED HARDIN, IRS Agent; VERA ARSOLA, IRS Agent; TRACEY E. WARREN,

IRS Agent,

Defendants-Appellees.

__________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(CA-H-95-4739)

__________________ April 7, 1998

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Donald Alan Friddell appeals the district court’s dismissal of

and entry of summary judgment against him on his claims against

Harris County, employees of the Harris County Sheriff’s Department,

and Harris County Commissioners brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §- 2 -

1983, and his claims against the IRS and various IRS agents, which

we construe as being brought pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown

Named Agents

, 403 U.S. 388 (1971 ). After careful review of the

record and those arguments ra ised on appeal, we affirm for

substantially the same reasons stated by the district court. See

Friddell v. Gatewood , CA-H-95-4739 (S.D. Tex. April 11, 1996, and

June 20, 1996).

With respect to his claims against the IRS, it is well settled

that a plaintiff may not bring a Bivens action for damages against

a federal agency. S ee FDIC v. Meyer

, 510 U.S. 471, 483-86 (1994).

Likewise, because a suit against a government offici al in his

official capacity is actually a suit against the governmental

agency, see Baker v. Putnal

, 75 F.3d 190, 195 (5th Cir. 1996), the

district court properly dismissed Friddell’s claims against the IRS

agents in their official capacity. The district court also

properly dismissed Friddell’s claims against Harris County and the

Harris County defendants in their official capacity because

Friddell offered no evidence as to a policy or custom on behalf of

Harris County. See Monell v. New York City Dep’t of Soc. Servs.

,

436 U.S. 658, 690-91 (1978); Baker , 75 F.3d at 195. With respect

to Friddell’s claims against the Harris County defendants and the

IRS agents in their individual capacities, the district court

properly g ranted summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds

becau se Friddell has not alleged a constitutional violation. To

the extent that Friddell argues that the search was defective- 3 -

because he was not given a copy of the affidavit upon which the

warrant was based, the federal rules require only that the warrant

be served. S ee Fed. R. C rim. P. 41(d). To the extent that

Friddell claims that he was improperly required to turn over his

private mail, the government had obtained a separate wa rrant to

search his post office box. To the extent that Friddell argues

that the search warrant was obtained under “false statement s and

misrepresentations,” Friddell has completely failed to substantiate

this allegation with any offer of proof beyond his own conclusory

statements. Such conclusory allegations are insufficient to

survive summary judgment. S ee Franks v. Delaware

, 438 U.S. 154,

171 (1978). Finally, we have reviewed Friddell’s remaining

arguments on appeal and find them to be entirely withou t merit.

For these reasons and for substantially the same reasons set

forth by the district court in its orders dated April 11, 1996, and

June 20, 1996, we affirm the decision of the district court.

All pending motions are DENIED.

AFFIRMED; MOTIONS DENIED.