Bishop Dewayne v. JP Morgan Mortgage Acquisition ( 2020 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-1889
BISHOP RUBEN DEWAYNE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JP MORGAN MORTGAGE ACQUISITION CORP.; MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Columbia. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (3:19-cv-03376-JMC)
Submitted: November 17, 2020 Decided: November 19, 2020
Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bishop Rueben Dewayne, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew Adams Abee, Carmen Harper
Thomas, NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Bishop Ruben Dewayne appeals the district court’s orders accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Dewayne’s civil action, and
denying his motion for reconsideration. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues
raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Dewayne’s informal brief does
not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, he has forfeited appellate review
of the court’s orders. 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.”).
On appeal, Dewayne also contends that the district court judge should have recused
herself. Because Dewayne did not move the district court for recusal, we review his claim
only for plain error. See United States v. Minard, 856 F.3d 555, 557 (8th Cir. 2017).
Dewayne fails to establish that recusal was required. See Belue v. Leventhal, 640 F.3d 567,
572-74 (4th Cir. 2011) (noting that judicial rulings are rarely valid basis for bias or
partiality motion). Thus, the district court’s failure to recuse did not amount to error, plain
or otherwise.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. We also deny Dewayne’s motion
to strike counsel for Appellees’ appearances. 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
2