Donald Hinton v. P. McCabe

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Donald Hinton v. P. McCabe

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7292

DONALD LEE HINTON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

P. MCCABE,

Defendant - Appellee,

and

DANIEL CALHOUN, M.D.; EASTER, Medical Technician LVCC,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3:16-cv-00222-JAG-RCY)

Submitted: February 28, 2020 Decided: March 11, 2020

Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donald Lee Hinton, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Donald L. Hinton appeals the district court’s order denying his motions for recusal

of the district court judge, pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 455

(b) (2018), and for relief from the

district court’s judgment dismissing his

42 U.S.C. § 1983

(2018) complaint, pursuant to

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the

Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Hinton’s informal brief does not

challenge the district court’s dispositive conclusions regarding his Rule 60(b) motion,

Hinton has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order denying that motion. See

Jackson v. Lightsey,

775 F.3d 170, 177

(4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important

document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that

brief.”). Turning to Hinton’s recusal motion, we have reviewed the record and conclude

that the district court did not abuse its discretion. See Kolon Indus. Inc. v. E.I. DuPont de

Nemours & Co.,

748 F.3d 160, 167

(4th Cir. 2014) (noting standard of review).

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Hinton v. McCabe,

No. 3:16-cv-00222-JAG-RCY (E.D. Va. Aug. 27, 2019). We deny Hinton’s motion for

appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

2

Reference

Status
Unpublished