Donald Lee Hinton v. P. McCabe

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7292

DONALD LEE HINTON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

P. MCCABE,

Defendant - Appellee,

and

DANIEL CALHOUN, M.D.; EASTER, Medical Technician LVCC,

Defendants.

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)

Submitted: February 28, 2020 Decided: March 11, 2020

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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

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