Bond v. Blum
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
WILLIAM C. BOND, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. KENNETH BLUM, SR.; DUDLEY F.B. HODGSON; WILLIAM SLAVIN; MCDANIEL, BENNETT & GRIFFIN; ADELBERG, RUDOW, DORF & HENDLER, LLC; CHRISTOPHER W. NICHOLSON; KENNETH BLUM, JR., Defendants - Appellees, and MERRILL LYNCH & CO; MERCANTILE BANKSHARES CORPORATION; BANK OF AMERICA; LAW OFFICES OF TIMOTHY M. GUNNING; HOWARD J. SCHULMAN; SCHULMAN & KAUFMAN, LLC; THOMAS & LIBOWITZ, PA; MICHAEL S. LIBOWITZ; LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD M. KARCESKI; RICHARD M. KARCESKI; BANK OF AMERICA, NA; BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, Garnishees, v. ALYSON BOND, Co-Movant to release writ of SCHULMAN & KAUFMAN, LLC; HOWARD J. SCHULMAN, Movants. garnishment;
WILLIAM C. BOND, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. KENNETH BLUM, SR.; ERLENE BLUM; ALAN S. COHN; ROBIN COHN; KENNETH BLUM, JR.; DUDLEY F.B. HODGSON; WILLIAM H. SLAVIN; WILLIAM A. MCDANIEL, JR.; CAROLINE A. GRIFFIN; MCDANIEL, BENNETT & GRIFFIN; MCDANIEL & GRIFFIN; PAUL A. DORF; ADELBERG, RUDOW, DORF & HENDLER, LLC; GERARD P. MARTIN; MIRIAM PESSIN; RENT-A-WRECK OF AMERICA, INCORPORATED, Defendants - Appellees.
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-cv01385-JFM)
August 27, 2008
September 19, 2008
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
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. 2
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: 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.1 This court reviews the denial of a See MLC Automotive,
Rule 60(b) motion for an abuse of discretion.
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.2 Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. July 12, 2007). 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. §§ 1961-1968 (West 2000 & Supp. 2008), and other federal statutes. We have reviewed the record and find that the district court did Bond v. Blum, No. 1:01-cv-02600-MJG (D. Md.
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. 4
not err in dismissing Bond's action.
Accordingly, we affirm for Bond v. Blum, No. 1:07-
the reasons stated by the district court. 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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?