James Kirby Swiney, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint alleging violations of his civil rights and of his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). He also claims an unlawful seizure and deprivation of property.

The district court adopted the findings and recommendation of a magistrate judge to dismiss all of Swiney’s claims. The district court found that two defendants *197 had not been served with process, that some disputed property had been disbursed pursuant to a state court’s order, that the law enforcement officers involved were entitled to qualified immunity, and that insufficient claims were stated under the ADA and for alleged violations of constitutional rights.

On appeal from the judgment, Swiney has submitted a brief identical to that which a panel of this court has already found to be without merit. Crull v. City New Braunfels, et al, 267 FedAppx. 338 (5th Cir. 2008) (unpublished). Although Swiney was not the appellant in the earlier decision, the appellant was involved in the same events on which Swiney has sued. The legal arguments in the two cases are the same and are no more availing today.

Essentially for the reasons stated by the magistrate and adopted by the district court, we AFFIRM.