WOODS v. SAUL (2019)

[Unpublished]

Nathan Gale Woods appeals the district court’s ¹ affirmance of a decision denying him disability insurance benefits and supplement security income. We find that substantial evidence supports the administrative law judge’s (ALJ’s) determination that Woods’s speech apraxia was not disabling. See Gann v. Berryhill, 864 F.3d 947, 950-51 (8th Cir. 2017) (reviewing de novo district court’s decision affirming denial of benefits; where substantial evidence on record as whole supports ALJ’s decision, this court will affirm).² We also find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of Woods’s requests for counsel, see Patterson v. Kelley, 902 F.3d 845, 849-50 (8th Cir. 2018) (pro se litigants have no constitutional or statutory right to counsel in civil case; summarizing relevant criteria for determining whether counsel should be appointed); or in the court’s denial of Woods’s request for recusal, see Dossett v. First State Bank, 399 F.3d 940, 953 (8th Cir. 2005) (adverse judicial rulings rarely constitute valid basis for recusal). The judgment is affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The Honorable M. Douglas Harpool, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

2.   On appeal, Woods does not address the other impairments he identified as disabling. See Hacker v. Barnhart, 459 F.3d 934, 937 n.2 (8th Cir. 2006) (abandonment of issue).

PER CURIAM.