Donald S. Bryant, Jr., and Linda M. Bryant (the Bryants) appeal from the order denying their motion for the district court to recuse itself and from the order dismissing their Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), action and imposing sanctions pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 11. Adverse rulings alone do not call into question a district judge’s impartiality. *309 Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 556, 114 S.Ct. 1147, 127 L.Ed.2d 474 (1994). The Bryants’ recusal argument relies on the district court’s previous rulings; the denial of their recusal motion therefore was not an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Mizell, 88 F.3d 288, 299 (5th Cir. 1996).

In addition to their recusal argument, the Bryants reurge their constitutional arguments and question FBI Agent Michael Orndorff s entitlement to qualified immunity. They state that the district court violated their civil rights by finding the lawsuit to be frivolous because Orndorff is bound by the Constitution. They do not argue that the district court’s res judicata analysis was erroneous, and they do not challenge the imposition of sanctions against them. The Bryants have failed to brief the dispositive issues for appeal. Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).

APPEAL DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.