Case Name: SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA (US), Plaintiff, v. Sandra TINSLEY, Defendant-Appellee, Louis A. Smith, in his capacity as administrator of the estate of Evelyn Margaret Turner, deceased, Defendant-Appellant, and Louise G. Smith, in her individual capacity, and in her capacity as co-administrator of the estate of Evelyn Margaret Turner, deceased; Hutcherson Funeral Home, Incorporated, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-01-08
Citations: 266 F. App'x 228
Docket Number: No. 07-1347
Parties: SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA (US), Plaintiff, v. Sandra TINSLEY, Defendant-Appellee, Louis A. Smith, in his capacity as administrator of the estate of Evelyn Margaret Turner, deceased, Defendant-Appellant, and Louise G. Smith, in her individual capacity, and in her capacity as co-administrator of the estate of Evelyn Margaret Turner, deceased; Hutcherson Funeral Home, Incorporated, Defendants.
Judges: Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 266
Pages: 228–228

Head Matter:
SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA (US), Plaintiff, v. Sandra TINSLEY, Defendant-Appellee, Louis A. Smith, in his capacity as administrator of the estate of Evelyn Margaret Turner, deceased, Defendant-Appellant, and Louise G. Smith, in her individual capacity, and in her capacity as co-administrator of the estate of Evelyn Margaret Turner, deceased; Hutcherson Funeral Home, Incorporated, Defendants.
No. 07-1347.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 14, 2007.
Decided: Jan. 8, 2008.
Louis A. Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Tinsley, Lynchburg, Virginia, Appellee Pro Se.
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Louis A. Smith appeals the district court's order finding a change of beneficiary form ineffective and granting judgment for Sandra Tinsley in this civil action. We have reviewed the record, including the trial, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Sun Life Assurance Co. v. Tinsley, No. 6:06-cv-00010-NKM, 2007 WL 1052485 (W.D.Va. Apr. 4, 2007). To the extent Smith alleges the district court was biased against him, he has failed to show grounds for relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 144, 455 (2000); Sine v. Local No. 992 Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 882 F.2d 913, 914-15 (4th Cir.1989) (giving standard for affidavit of recusal); Shaw v. Martin, 733 F.2d 304, 308 (4th Cir.1984) (providing basis for recusal on grounds of prejudice and bias). 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.