Dorcas Njenga v. Alberto Gonzales

United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 06-1472
___________
Nurjhan B. Govan, *
*
Appellant, *
* Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the
* Eastern District of Missouri.
James Gammon; Teresa Thornburg; *
Sherry Dunseit; Missouri Department * [UNPUBLISHED]
of Corrections, *
*
Appellees, *
*
Moberly Correctional Center, *
*
Defendant, *
*
Les Balty, Human Relations Officer, *
MO Dept. of Corrections, *
*
Appellee, *
*
Tom Anderson, *
*
Defendant. *
___________
Submitted: March 7, 2007
Filed: March 13, 2007
___________
Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

-- 1 of 2 --

1The Honorable Jean C. Hamilton, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Missouri.
2In their brief on appeal, appellees also defend the summary judgment rulings,
but we address only the arguments that Govan raises in her appellate brief.
-2-
___________
PER CURIAM.
Nurjhan B. Govan appeals following the district court’s 1 partial grants of
summary judgment, and its subsequent entry of judgment on a jury verdict as to the
remaining claims, in this employment-discrimination matter. We affirm.
On appeal, Govan argues that the district court judge was biased, because the
judge ignored the law and sided with defendants in granting summary judgment. She
did not seek the district court judge’s recusal below, however, and even if she had, she
could not have sought recusal based on adverse rulings. See Lefkowitz v. City-Equity
Group, Inc., 146 F.3d 609, 611-12 (8th Cir. 1998). Govan also complains that the
district court refused to continue the trial, but we see nothing in the record to suggest
that the court abused its discretion. See United States v. Vesey, 330 F.3d 1070, 1071-
72 (8th Cir. 2003) (continuances are generally not favored and should be granted only
when requesting party has shown compelling reason; standard of review). Finally,
Govan makes numerous contentions about her appointed counsel’s alleged poor
performance, but this is not a basis for reversal. See Glick v. Henderson, 855 F.2d
536, 541 (8th Cir. 1988) (there is no statutory or constitutional right to effective
assistance of counsel in civil case). 2
Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________

-- 2 of 2 --