Opinion
21-35049
06-29-2022
BARBARA TANGWALL; DONNA UPHUES, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. WILLIAM R. SATTERBERG, Jr., et al., Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Alaska No. 4:20-cv-00040-SLG Sharon L. Gleason, District Judge, Presiding
Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM
Barbara Tangwall and Donna Uphues appeal pro se from the district court's judgment in their action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
Denial of appellants' motion to recuse the district court judge was not an abuse of discretion because appellants failed to establish any basis for recusal. See 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) ("Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned."); Clemens v. U.S. Dist. Court, 428 F.3d 1175, 1178 (9th Cir. 2005) (test for disqualification under § 455(a)); see also United States v. Johnson, 610 F.3d 1138, 1147 (9th Cir. 2010) (standard of review).
In their briefs, appellants have failed to raise, and have therefore abandoned, any challenge to the district court's order awarding attorney's fees. See Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 1992) (issues not supported by argument in pro se briefs are deemed abandoned).
We reject as meritless appellants' contentions concerning appellees' notices of appearance and purported conflicts of interest.
We lack jurisdiction to consider the underlying judgment because appellants failed to file a timely notice of appeal as to that judgment. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) (notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days from judgment).
Appellants' motion to strike (Docket Entry No. 36) and request to strike, set forth in their supplemental brief, are denied.
AFFIRMED.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).