USCA4 Appeal: 25-1532 Doc: 7 Filed: 07/29/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-1532

JAMUS BRYANT, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:24-cv-02128-LMB-WBP)

Submitted: July 24, 2025 Decided: July 29, 2025

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jamus Bryant, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1532 Doc: 7 Filed: 07/29/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Jamus Bryant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion to recuse the district judge. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The order Bryant seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. * 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.

DISMISSED

* In his informal reply brief, Bryant asks that this appeal be construed as a petition for a writ of mandamus. Even if we did so, we would find that mandamus relief is unavailable because Bryant’s conclusory assertions of bias are insufficient to warrant recusal. See Belue v. Leventhal, 640 F.3d 567, 572-73 (4th Cir. 2011); see also In re Murphy-Brown, LLC, 907 F.3d 788, 795 (4th Cir. 2018) (explaining that mandamus petitioner must show “clear and indisputable right to the requested relief” (internal quotation marks omitted)).