United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 20-5384 September Term, 2020 1:20-cv-02570-BAH Filed On: April 19, 2021 Janice Wolk Grenadier,

Appellant

United States of America, et al.,

Appellees

v.

Wells Fargo Bank Nevada, National Association, et al.,

Appellees

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BEFORE: Rogers and Wilkins, Circuit Judges, and Sentelle, Senior Circuit Judge

JUDGMENT

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s minute order filed November 23, 2020, denying appellant’s motion for recusal, and its minute order filed December 9, 2020, denying appellant’s motion for reconsideration, be affirmed. Appellant has provided no reasonable basis for questioning the impartiality of the district court judge. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994) (“[J]udicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion.”); In re Kaminski, 960 F.2d 1062, 1065 n.3 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (per curiam) (“A judge should not recuse himself based upon conclusory, unsupported or tenuous allegations.”). Nor has appellant shown any abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of reconsideration. See Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205, 1208 (D.C. Cir. 1996). United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 20-5384 September Term, 2020

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT: Mark J. Langer, Clerk

BY: /s/ Daniel J. Reidy Deputy Clerk

Page 2