HINTON v. LVCC (2020)

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, 2019 WL 4040622 (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

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.