Opinion
No. 14-1750
10-24-2014
AKIL RASHIDI BEY, Ex rel Aikdo Graves, Moorish American Moslem National, in full life, All Rights Reserved, Without Prejudice, Tscnocmoco Territory, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. RICHMOND REDEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING AUTHORITY, Defendant - Appellee and WILLITTE C. WILLIAMS, in her official and personal capacity; TAMMY L. GRUBB, in her official and personal capacity; CALANDRA M. TROTTER, in her official and personal capacity; GENESIS PROPERTIES, in their official and personal capacity; JEFFERSON TOWNHOMES, in their official and personal capacity; VANESSADIETERLY, in their official and personal capacity; JOYWARFIELD, in their official and personal capacity, Defendants.
Akil Rashidi Bey, Appellant Pro Se. Steven George Popps, Brian Emory Pumphrey, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:13-cv-00464-HEH) Before MOTZ, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Akil Rashidi Bey, Appellant Pro Se. Steven George Popps, Brian Emory Pumphrey, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Akil Bey appeals the district court's order dismissing his complaint for failure to state a claim. On appeal, Bey argues that the district judge should have recused himself, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455 (2012). Because Bey never presented a motion for recusal to the district court, we review his claim under the plain error standard. Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(b); see United States v. Schreiber, 599 F.2d 534, 535-36 (3d Cir. 1979) (holding that where § 455 recusal was not raised before trial judge, the standard of review is plain error). Our review of the record reflects no bias or conflicts of interest on the part of the district judge. Accordingly, we 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