Court Opinion

ID: 2962949
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:04:02.648479+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:29.624646
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          October 20, 1994                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                               UNITED STATES OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 94-1673                               JUAN M. COFIELD, ET AL.,                                     Appellants,                                          v.                                HARRY GRAHAM, ET AL.,                                      Appellees.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                      [Hon. Patti B. Saris, U.S. District Judge]                                            ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                  Cyr, Circuit Judge.                                       _____________                          Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge, and                                   ____________________                                Stahl, Circuit Judge.                                       _____________                                 ____________________            James E. Cofield Jr. and Juan M. Cofield on brief pro se.            ____________________     _______________            Robert Owen Resnick, Cullen & Resnick on brief for appellees.            ___________________  ________________                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                 Per  Curiam.   We have  carefully reviewed  the parties'                 ___________            briefs  and the  record  on appeal.    We conclude  that  the            district  court  correctly  dismissed the  bankruptcy  appeal            essentially  for the  reasons  stated in  the district  court            memorandum and  order, In re  Malmart Mortgage Co.,  166 B.R.                                   ___________________________            499  (D. Mass.  1994).   We  add  that the  district  court's            failure to  address in more particular  detail the bankruptcy            court's order denying appellants' motion for recusal is of no            moment  since appellants' complaint  was completely  based on            their   unhappiness  and  disagreement  with  the  bankruptcy            court's  rulings.   "[J]udicial  rulings  alone almost  never            constitute  valid basis  for  a bias  or partiality  motion."            Liteky v.  United States, 114 S. Ct. 1147, 1157 (1994).  And,            ______     _____________            mistakes  of law, even assuming  there were any,  are not, of            themselves,  evidence  of bias.   Panzardi-Alvarez  v. United                                              ________________     ______            States,  879 F.2d 975, 984 n.7 (1st Cir. 1989), cert. denied,            ______                                          ____________            493 U.S. 1082 (1990).                 The facts and  legal arguments are  adequately presented            in the briefs and record and the decisional process would not            be significantly  aided by  oral argument.   The request  for            oral argument is, therefore, denied.                                         _______                 Affirmed.                 _________