As the state court proceedings which Appellants attempted to prevent have concluded, all issues related to Judge Furgesoris alleged abuse of discretion in denying the Temporary Restraining Order are deemed moot. Judge Furgesoris actions in no way violated any canon of judicial ethics. Nor did he err in continuing to act after a motion for recusal was filed. Judge Furgeson possessed authority under 28 U.S.C. § 455 and 28 U.S.C. § 144 to rule on the legal sufficiency of the facts alleged to show bias or prejudice. Davis v. Board of School Comm’rs of Mobile County, 517 F.2d 1044, 1051 (5th Cir.), reh’g denied 521 F.2d 814, cert. denied 425 U.S. 944, 96 S.Ct. 1685, 48 L.Ed.2d 188 (1976). Judge Furgesoris authority to issue orders in this case continued until there was notice of appeal from the final judgment. In re Transtexas Gas Corp., 303 F.3d 571, 579 (5th Cir. 2002).

After examining the record, we find no error of Judge Furgeson. The appellants have pursued complaints in the district court and this court that have no arguable *989 legal merit. Only because they act pro se without legal advice sanctions will not be ordered.

The motion for sanctions is DENIED.

The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.