* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### December 5, 2005
Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

SHEILA BILYEU, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. THE DAILY OKLAHOMAN; NOLAN CLAY, Defendants-Appellees. No. 05-6010 (D.C. No. 04-CV-1428-R) (W.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before KELLY , McKAY , and McCONNELL , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). T he case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.1 “[I]n the interest of judicial economy,” The Oklahoman has accepted

service in the name of The Daily Oklahoman , despite defendants’ contention that The Daily Oklahoman is not a proper party to this suit. Aplee. Br. at 1 n.1. -2- Pro se plaintiff Sheila Bilyeu was the Independent Party candidate for Oklahoma’s United States Senate seat in 2004. As s uch, she was the subject of a September 6, 2004, newspaper article written by Nolan Clay and published by The Daily Oklahoman (“defendants”). 1 Dissatisfied with the article and a photograph “that made her look weird,” Ms. Bileyu sued defendants in state court “for discrimination and conspiracy to ruin her life and her candidacy for the U.S. Senate,” Aplee. App. Doc. 2 at 2 (complaint). Defendants removed the case to federal court and fi led a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The district court granted defendants’ F ed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion and dismissed the case with prejudice. This appeal followed. Our jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Wereview de novo a district court’s dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Sutton v. Utah State Sch. for the Deaf & Blind , 173 F.3d 1226, 1236 (10th Cir. 1999). Because Ms . Bilyeu is representing herself, we construe her pleadings liberally. Hall v. Bellmon , 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).-3-

On appeal, Ms. Bilyeu contends that the district co urt judge should have recused himself because he has twice previously rul ed against her. But “‘adverse rulings cannot in themselves form the appropriate g rounds for disqualification.’” United States v. Nickl , 427 F.3d 1286, 1298 (10th Cir. 2005) (quoting Green v. Branson , 108 F.3d 1296, 1305 (10th Cir. 1997)). We theref ore hold that, on the facts of this case, the district court judge was no t required to recuse himself. We likewise reject Ms. Bilyeu’s assertion that the district court erred by granting defendants’ 12(b)(6) motion. Having caref ully reviewed the briefs, the record, and applicable law, we agree with the distr ict court that Ms. Bilyeu’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Andrew S. Bestor’s motion for leave of the court tofile an amicus curiae brief is DENIED. Ms. Bilyeu’s motion to find appel lees “out of time” is DENIED. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

Michael W. McConnell Circuit Judge