Court Opinion

ID: 9881774
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-03 21:00:47.533173+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:18.115108
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2323      Doc: 40         Filed: 10/02/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-2323

        MITHUN BANERJEE,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        NATIONWIDE RECOVERY SERVICE, INC., Resident Agent: Cogency Global
        Inc.,

                            Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
        Paula Xinis, District Judge. (8:20-cv-02751-PX)

        Submitted: September 28, 2023                                     Decided: October 2, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Mithun Banerjee, Appellant Pro Se. Bradley Todd Canter, LAW OFFICES OF
        RONALD S. CANTER, LLC, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2323       Doc: 40         Filed: 10/02/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Mithun Banerjee appeals the district court’s order granting Defendant’s motion for

        summary judgment in his civil action alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act,

        15 U.S.C. § 1681 to 1681x. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. In

        addition to his challenge to the district court’s grant of summary judgment, Banerjee

        challenges the district court judge’s refusal to recuse herself. We review a district court

        judge’s recusal decision for abuse of discretion. United States v. Stone, 866 F.3d 219, 229

        (4th Cir. 2017).    Here, Banjeree’s asserted grounds for recusal amounted to mere

        dissatisfaction with the district court’s unfavorable rulings, which is not a sufficient ground

        for recusal. See Belue v. Leventhal, 640 F.3d 567, 572-74 (4th Cir. 2011) (discussing valid

        bases for bias or partiality motion). The district court judge therefore did not abuse her

        discretion in declining Banjeree’s request for recusal. Accordingly, we deny Banerjee’s

        motion to appoint counsel and affirm the district court’s order. 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

                                                      2