Opinion
Nos. 07-1720, 08-1171.
Submitted: August 27, 2008.
Decided: September 19, 2008.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, Senior District Judge; J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (1:01-cv-02600-MJG; 1:07-cv-01385-JFM).
William C. Bond, Appellant Pro Se. Amy E. Askew, William Fitts Ryan, Jr., Whiteford, Taylor Preston, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland; Gerard Patrick Martin, Thy Christine Pham, Rosenberg, Martin Greenberg, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland; Kathryn Miller Goldman, Jiranek, Goldman Minton, LLC, Baltimore, Maryland; Jo C. Bennett, William Alden McDaniel, Jr., McDaniel, Bennett Griffin, Baltimore, Maryland; Andrew Radding, Michael Richard Severino, Adelberg, Rudow, Dorf Hendler, LLC, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
William C. Bond appeals the district court's rulings dismissing his dual actions filed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). In Case No. 07-1720, Bond appeals from the district court's order denying his motion for reconsideration of the judgment in his underlying copyright action. This court reviews the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion for an abuse of discretion. See MLC Automotive, LLC v. Town of Southern Pines, 532 F.3d 269, 277 (4th Cir. 2008). We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for reconsideration. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Bond v. Blum, No. 1:01-cv-02600-MJG (D.Md. July 12, 2007).
See Bond v. Blum, 317 F.3d 385 (4th Cir. 2003).
Bond also appeals from the district court's denial of a number of other post-judgment motions that were filed in this case, including a motion to recuse the presiding judge. Upon review of the record, we find there were no valid grounds for recusal and that the district court did not err in denying Bond's post-judgment motions.
In Case No. 08-1171, Bond appeals from the district court's sua sponte dismissal of his "independent action" under Rule 60(b), in which Bond sought monetary damages for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 1961- 1964 (West 2000 Supp. 2008), and other federal statutes. We have reviewed the record and find that the district court did nqt err in dismissing Bond's action. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Bond v. Blum, No. 1:07-cv-01385-JFM (D. Md. June 26, 2007).
While we grant Bond's motion to supplement his informal brief in Case No. 07-1720, we deny all other pending motions. 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.