
    Martin Moreno RUIZ, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Patricio MARTINEZ, Chihuahua State Governor’s Office of the General Justice of the State previous office of the Ministerial Public; Jose Reyes Baeza, Chihuahua State Governor’s Office of the General Justice of the State previous Office of the Ministerial Public; Police Department Attorney General of Justice of the States of Chihuahua; Patricia Gonzalez Rodriguez, Sub-Attorney General of Justice of the State of Chihuahua; Norma Dominguez Rivera, Supervisors of the Ministerial Public Police Department; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    
      No. 07-50726
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    March 11, 2008.
    Martin Moreno Ruiz, Chaparral, NM, pro se.
    Before KING, DAVIS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Martin Moreno Ruiz, alien detainee # [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], appeals the district court’s dismissal of his complaint against various elected officials and employees of the City of Juarez and the State of Chihuahua, Mexico. Aside from eonclusional allegations that his complaint was filed under the Alien Tort Claims Act, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nations Charter, and Article VI of the United States Constitution, Ruiz does not address the district court’s determination that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over his claims and personal jurisdiction over the defendants. Ruiz’s attempt to incorporate by reference the arguments set forth in his notice of appeal is an insufficient means of raising those arguments in this court. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.1993). Therefore, Ruiz has abandoned any challenge to the district court’s dismissal of his complaint by failing to raise the issues in his brief. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.1987). Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. Ruiz’s motions for a temporary restraining order (stay of deportation), a transfer or relocation to another facility, a picture of the district court judge, and newspaper reports concerning the appellants are DENIED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     