William Bond v. Johnny Hughe

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. [999990499]. Mailed to: William Bond. [16-1778]

Appeal: 16-1778

Doc: 9

Filed: 12/20/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1778

WILLIAM C. BOND,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JOHNNY L. HUGHES, United
MARYLAND U.S. JUDGES,

States

Marshal;

UNKNOWN

NAMED

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. David A. Faber, Senior District Judge.
(1:15-cv-00199-DAF)

Submitted:

December 12, 2016

Before MOTZ and
Circuit Judge.

KING,

Circuit

Decided:

Judges,

and

December 20, 2016

HAMILTON,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William C. Bond, Appellant Pro Se.
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Appellee.

Matthew Paul Phelps, OFFICE
Baltimore, Maryland, for

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1778

Doc: 9

Filed: 12/20/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
William

C.

Bond

appeals

from

the

district

court’s

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
Act (FCA).
Count

We affirm.
II

of

Bond’s

complaint

was

subject

to

dismissal

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.
2011);

United

States

ex

rel.

Mergent

Servs.

v.

Flaherty,

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),
abrogated

on

Eisenstein v.

other
City

of

grounds
New

by

York,

556

United
U.S.

States
928

States v. Onan, 190 F.2d 1, 6-7 (8th Cir. 1951).

ex.

(2009);

rel

United

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
2

Appeal: 16-1778

Doc: 9

Filed: 12/20/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

Auto Racing, Inc., 674 F.3d 369, 378 (4th Cir. 2012) (stating
standard

of

review

and

circumstances

motion may be granted).
court’s orders.

under

which

Rule

59(e)

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
and

transfer

and

We dispense

with

contentions

are

to
oral

appoint

counsel

argument

adequately

and

because

presented

in

expedite

decision.

the

facts

and

the

materials

legal
before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3