Court Opinion

ID: 9831339
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:00:49.376681+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:33.802579
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1561      Doc: 9         Filed: 08/31/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-1561

        KIMARLO RAGLAND,

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        FRANCENE GREGORY,

                             Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:22-cv-00443-BO-RJ)

        Submitted: August 29, 2023                                        Decided: August 31, 2023

        Before KING, AGEE, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Kimarlo Antonio Ragland, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1561       Doc: 9          Filed: 08/31/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Kimarlo Antonio Ragland appeals the district court’s order adopting the

        recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Ragland’s civil action without

        prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, and denying his motion for recusal as moot. We have

        reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not err in dismissing the action.

        Moreover, with respect to Ragland’s recusal motion, we conclude that the district court’s

        denial of that motion “was at most harmless error,” see Faulkner v. Nat’l Geographic

        Enters., Inc., 409 F.3d 26, 42 n.10 (2d Cir. 2005), and, in any event, “our conclusion that

        [Ragland’s] . . . claims no longer belong in federal court renders the recusal issue . . . moot,”

        see Tonkovich v. Kan. Bd. of Regents, 254 F.3d 941, 946 (10th Cir. 2001).

               Accordingly, we deny Ragland’s motion to place the appeal in abeyance and affirm

        the district court’s judgment. 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