
    Carolyn FOSTER; Murrell Foster, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. T. John WARD, An individual; Billy Fox Branson, An individual; Donald W. Capshaw, An individual; William J. Cornelius, An individual; Valerie Farwell, An individual; Raymond W. Jordan, An individual; Bill Peek, An individual; Lanny Ramsay, An individual; Margaret J. Reeves, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 03-40330
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Nov. 3, 2003.
    Carolyn Foster, pro se, DeKalb, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Murrell Foster, pro se, DeKalb, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Andrea Lynn Parker, Assistant US Attorney, US Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Texas, Beaumont, TX, Carol Cannedy Dalby, District Attorney’s Office for the County of Bowie, Valerie Sue Farwell, Donald W. Capshaw, Patton, Haltom, Roberts, McWilliams & Greer, Texarkana, TX, Megan M. Hare, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Texas, Austin, TX, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Raymond W. Jordan, pro se, Jordan Law Firm, Texarkana, TX, for DefendantAppellee.
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Carolyn and Murrell Foster appeal the dismissal of their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit pursuant to judicial immunity and Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) and 12(b)(6). We dismiss the appeal as frivolous.

Judge Ward is absolutely immune from suit, and the Fosters’ argument that the district court misapplied the doctrine of judicial immunity is without merit. We find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s stay of discovery. Finally, by failing to address in their opening brief the district court’s Rule 41(b) and 12(b)(6) dismissal, the Fosters have abandoned the issue on appeal.

This appeal is without arguable merit and is therefore dismissed. The Fosters’ brief contains numerous insulting references to the district judge and three members of this court who previously issued a ruling adverse to the Fosters. The Fosters have already been cautioned that the use of abusive language in pleadings will not be tolerated. In light of the Fosters’ continued use of their pleadings to launch frivolous attacks against members of the judiciary, we hereby impose monetary sanctions against the Fosters in the amount of $500, payable to the clerk of this court for deposit into the Treasury of the United States in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 711(c). The clerk of this court is instructed to refuse to accept any further filings from the Fosters in this or any other appeal until such monetary sanction is paid in full.

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS IMPOSED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     
      
      . See Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978); Brinkmann v. Johnston, 793 F.2d 111, 112 (5th Cir. 1986).
     
      
      . See Moore v. Willis Indep. Sch. Dist., 233 F.3d 871, 876 (5th Cir.2000).
     
      
      . See Cinel v. Connick, 15 F.3d 1338, 1345 (5th Cir. 1994); Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(9); see also Taita Chemical Co., Ltd. v. Westlake Styrene Corp., 246 F.3d 377, 384 n. 9 (5th Cir. 2001).
     
      
      . See 5th Cir. R. 42,2; Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.1983).
     
      
      . See Foster v. Moye, 73 Fed.Appx. 80 (5th Cir.2003).
     
      
      . See Farguson v. MBank Houston, N.A., 808 F.2d 358, 360 (5th Cir.1986).
     
      
      . Id.
      
     