
    Harold J. BLAKELY, Plaintiff-Appellant v. CITY OF LAUREL; Shannon Caraway, Police Officer; Darlean Norris, Police Officer; Cecelia Arnold, former Municipal Court Judge; Jacqueline Jackson, Deputy Clerk; Sonya Payton, Complainant, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 15-60718
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    March 25, 2016.
    Harold J. Blakely, Laurel, MS, pro se.
    . Brett Woods Robinson, Hortman, Harlow, Bassi, Robinson & McDaniel, P.L.L.C., Laurel, MS, for Defendants-Ap-pellees.
    Sonya Payton, Laurel, MS, pro se.
    
      Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

This case arises from Harold J. Blakely’s arrest based on charges filed by his sister, Sonya Payton (“Payton”). Blakely sued the arresting officers, the judge who issued the warrants, the deputy clerk, the City of Laurel (“Municipal Defendants”), as well as his sister. He appeals the district court’s denial of his motions for default judgment and dismissal of his claims. Blakely’s notice of appeal referenced “orders entered in this civil action on the 17th day of September, 2015.” Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 3 states that the contents of the notice of appeal must “designate the judgment, order, or part thereof being appealed.” Fed. R.App. P. 3(c)(1)(B). Blakely’s reference to “orders” entered on a certain date may pass muster. On appeal, Blakely does not adequately explain his arguments or provide supporting authority. Arguments not adequately briefed are deemed to be waived. U.S. v. Scroggins, 599 F.3d 433, 446 (5th Cir.2010). Notwithstanding, his claims fail on the merits and we affirm for the following reasons.

First, Blakely filed a motion for default judgment against the Municipal Defendants. The district court correctly denied the motion, finding that the defendants had all properly appeared and defended the matter. Additionally, in its order the court disposed of Blakely’s request to disqualify Defendant’s counsel, Brett Woods Robinson, appropriately concluding that Blakely presented no evidence of a conflict of interest or of defense counsel’s impropriety.

Next, as to Blakely’s motion for default judgment against Payton, the district court was well within its discretion in denying the motion as premature. It was also proper for the court to decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the claim against Payton, because it had dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(3).

Finally, in its Memorandum Opinion and Order, the court thoroughly analyzed the issues and accurately held that the Municipal Defendants were entitled to immunity and that Blakely failed to assert valid claims for which relief could be granted.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       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.
     