Affirmed by unpublished PER ' CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Percy James Tucker appeals the district court’s order denying his Fed.R. Crim.P. 33 motion for a new trial 1 and his motion for recusal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(1) (2012). We affirm. •

We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the recusal motion because the district court’s judicial determinations in Tucker’s criminal case, on which Tucker’s challenge to the denial is based, do not provide a basis for recusal. Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 545, 114 S.Ct. 1147, 127 L.Ed.2d 474 (1994); Kolon Indus. Inc. v. E.I. Dumont de Nemours & Co., 748 F.3d 160, 167 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 135 S.Ct. 437, 190 L.Ed.2d 352 (2014); Belue v. Leventhal, 640 F.3d 567, 573 (4th Cir. 2011). We also conclude that Tucker has forfeited appellate review of the ground raised in his informal brief challenging the denial of his Rule 33 motion for a new trial because he otherwise failed to address the district court’s bases for denying relief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 2 We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would hot aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.