Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01472/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01472-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 

---

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Sherry Dunseit; Missouri Department * [UNPUBLISHED]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.

Appellate Case: 06-1472 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/13/2007 Entry ID: 3287581
1

The Honorable Jean C. Hamilton, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri. 

2

In 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’s1

 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. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-1472 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/13/2007 Entry ID: 3287581