ABRAMS v. HAYDEN (2019)

JUDGMENT

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief and appendix 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 August 7, 2018 order dismissing appellant's complaint for lack of jurisdiction be affirmed. The district court correctly concluded that appellant failed to demonstrate that the amount in controversy in this matter exceeded the threshold required to establish jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, or that any other basis for federal jurisdiction exists. Furthermore, recusal of the district judge was not warranted because appellant provided no reasonable basis for questioning the impartiality of the judge. See In re Kaminski, 960 F.2d 1062, 1065 n.3 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (“A judge should not recuse himself based upon conclusory, unsupported or tenuous allegations.”).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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