PRASAD v. UNITED STATES (2018)

Sundari K. Prasad appeals the district court's order dismissing under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A(b)(1) (2012) her particularized civil complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). On appeal, Prasad argues that the district court's disposition should be reversed because the district judge is biased against her and that the court should have appointed her counsel. We affirm.

First, Prasad's claim of judicial bias, which is based solely on her disagreement with the district court's substantive rulings in this and Prasad's other civil actions, gains no traction as this is not a sufficient basis for such a claim.^* See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555, 114 S.Ct. 1147, 127 L.Ed.2d 474 (1994) (“[J]udicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion.”). Next, Prasad contends that the district court should have appointed counsel to represent her in this matter. We find no fault in the district court's failure to appoint counsel to represent Prasad, though, because Prasad did not request that relief in this case. As a final matter, we observe that the other contentions raised in Prasad's informal brief are not responsive to the dispositive reasons for the district court's dismissal order, as required by Local Rule 34(b). 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.”).

For these reasons, we affirm the district court's order dismissing Prasad's Bivens action as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. See Prasad v. United States, No. 3:17-cv-00510-MHL-RCY, 2018 WL 1143597 (E.D. Va. Mar. 2, 2018). 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

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.   We also note that our independent review of the record did not reveal any indicia of judicial bias.

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.