William Bond v. Johnny Hughe
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999915671-2]; denying Motion to expedite decision [999915671-3]; denying Motion to disqualify/recuse judge [999888154-2]; denying Motion transfer case [999888154-3] Originating case number: 1:15-cv-00199-DAF Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. . Mailed to: William Bond. [16-1778]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
WILLIAM C. BOND,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
JOHNNY L. HUGHES, United
MARYLAND U.S. JUDGES,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. David A. Faber, Senior District Judge.
December 12, 2016
Before MOTZ and
December 20, 2016
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William C. Bond, Appellant Pro Se.
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Matthew Paul Phelps, OFFICE
Baltimore, Maryland, for
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
November 24, 2015, order dismissing his civil action and the
court’s April 8, 2016, order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)
motion to alter or amend judgment, confining his appeal to the
court’s dismissal of count II of his complaint, which sought qui
tam relief on behalf of the Government under the False Claims
because a pro se litigant may not pursue a qui tam action on
behalf of the Government under the FCA.
See Gunn v. Credit
Suisse Grp. AG, 610 F. App’x 155, 157 (3d Cir. 2015); Nasuti v.
Savage Farms Inc., No. 14–1362, 2015 WL 9598315, at *1 (1st Cir.
Mar. 12, 2015); Jones v. Jindal, 409 F. App’x 356 (D.C. Cir.
540 F.3d 89, 93 (2d Cir. 2008); Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870,
873-74 (11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam); Stoner v. Santa Clara Cty.
Office of Educ., 502 F.3d 1116, 1126-28 (9th Cir. 2007); United
States ex rel. Lu v. Ou, 368 F.3d 773, 775-76 (7th Cir. 2004),
States v. Onan, 190 F.2d 1, 6-7 (8th Cir. 1951).
We also find
no reversible error in the district court’s denial of Bond’s
Rule 59(e) motion.
See Mayfield v. Nat’l Ass’n for Stock Car
Pg: 3 of 3
Auto Racing, Inc., 674 F.3d 369, 378 (4th Cir. 2012) (stating
motion may be granted).
Accordingly, we affirm the district
Bond v. Hughes, No. 1:15-cv-00199-DAF (D. Md.
Nov. 24, 2015 & Apr. 8, 2016).
We deny Bond’s motions to recuse all Fourth Circuit judges
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
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?