Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-08-01171/USCOURTS-ca4-08-01171-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-1720

WILLIAM C. BOND,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

KENNETH BLUM, SR.; DUDLEY F.B. HODGSON; WILLIAM SLAVIN;

MCDANIEL, BENNETT & GRIFFIN; ADELBERG, RUDOW, DORF & HENDLER,

LLC; CHRISTOPHER W. NICHOLSON; KENNETH BLUM, JR.,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

MERRILL LYNCH & CO; MERCANTILE BANKSHARES CORPORATION; BANK OF

AMERICA; LAW OFFICES OF TIMOTHY M. GUNNING; HOWARD J.

SCHULMAN; SCHULMAN & KAUFMAN, LLC; THOMAS & LIBOWITZ, PA;

MICHAEL S. LIBOWITZ; LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD M. KARCESKI;

RICHARD M. KARCESKI; BANK OF AMERICA, NA; BANK OF AMERICA

CORPORATION,

Garnishees,

v.

ALYSON BOND, Co-Movant to release writ of garnishment;

SCHULMAN & KAUFMAN, LLC; HOWARD J. SCHULMAN,

Movants.

Appeal: 08-1171 Doc: 34 Filed: 09/19/2008 Pg: 1 of 5
2

No. 08-1171

WILLIAM C. BOND,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

KENNETH BLUM, SR.; ERLENE BLUM; ALAN S. COHN; ROBIN COHN;

KENNETH BLUM, JR.; DUDLEY F.B. HODGSON; WILLIAM H. SLAVIN;

WILLIAM A. MCDANIEL, JR.; CAROLINE A. GRIFFIN; MCDANIEL,

BENNETT & GRIFFIN; MCDANIEL & GRIFFIN; PAUL A. DORF; ADELBERG,

RUDOW, DORF & HENDLER, LLC; GERARD P. MARTIN; MIRIAM PESSIN;

RENT-A-WRECK OF AMERICA, INCORPORATED,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, Senior District Judge;

J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (1:01-cv-02600-MJG; 1:07-cv01385-JFM)

Submitted: August 27, 2008 Decided: September 19, 2008

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William C. Bond, Appellant Pro Se. Amy E. Askew, William Fitts

Ryan, Jr., WHITEFORD, TAYLOR & PRESTON, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland;

Gerard Patrick Martin, Thy Christine Pham, ROSENBERG, MARTIN &

GREENBERG, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland; Kathryn Miller Goldman,

JIRANEK, GOLDMAN & MINTON, LLC, Baltimore, Maryland; Jo C. Bennett,

William Alden McDaniel, Jr., MCDANIEL, BENNETT & GRIFFIN,

Baltimore, Maryland; Andrew Radding, Michael Richard Severino,

ADELBERG, RUDOW, DORF & HENDLER, LLC, Baltimore, Maryland, for

Appellees.

Appeal: 08-1171 Doc: 34 Filed: 09/19/2008 Pg: 2 of 5
3

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 08-1171 Doc: 34 Filed: 09/19/2008 Pg: 3 of 5
1See Bond v. Blum, 317 F.3d 385 (4th Cir. 2003).

2

Bond also appeals from the district court’s denial of a

number of other post-judgment motions that were filed in this case,

including a motion to recuse the presiding judge. Upon review of

the record, we find there were no valid grounds for recusal and

that the district court did not err in denying Bond’s post-judgment

motions.

4

PER CURIAM:

William C. Bond appeals the district court’s rulings

dismissing his dual actions filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

60(b). In Case No. 07-1720, Bond appeals from the district court’s

order denying his motion for reconsideration of the judgment in his

underlying copyright action.1 This court reviews the denial of a

Rule 60(b) motion for an abuse of discretion. See MLC Automotive,

LLC v. Town of Southern Pines, 532 F.3d 269, 277 (4th Cir. 2008).

We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court

did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for

reconsideration.2 Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by

the district court. Bond v. Blum, No. 1:01-cv-02600-MJG (D. Md.

July 12, 2007).

In Case No. 08-1171, Bond appeals from the district

court’s sua sponte dismissal of his “independent action” under Rule

60(b), in which Bond sought monetary damages for violations of the

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C.A.

§§ 1961-1968 (West 2000 & Supp. 2008), and other federal statutes.

We have reviewed the record and find that the district court did

Appeal: 08-1171 Doc: 34 Filed: 09/19/2008 Pg: 4 of 5
5

not err in dismissing Bond’s action. Accordingly, we affirm for

the reasons stated by the district court. Bond v. Blum, No. 1:07-

cv-01385-JFM (D. Md. June 26, 2007).

While we grant Bond’s motion to supplement his informal

brief in Case No. 07-1720, we deny all other pending motions. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Appeal: 08-1171 Doc: 34 Filed: 09/19/2008 Pg: 5 of 5