Opinion
No. 19-7292
03-11-2020
DONALD LEE HINTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. P. MCCABE, Defendant - Appellee, and DANIEL CALHOUN, M.D.; EASTER, Medical Technician LVCC, Defendants.
Donald Lee Hinton, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3:16-cv-00222-JAG-RCY) Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donald Lee Hinton, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
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 (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