Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07292/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07292-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Daniel Calhoun

Easter

Donald Lee Hinton
Appellant
P. McCabe
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7292 Doc: 15 Filed: 03/11/2020 Pg: 1 of 2
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

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7292 Doc: 15 Filed: 03/11/2020 Pg: 2 of 2