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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-1778 Doc: 9 Filed: 12/20/2016 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1778 WILLIAM C. BOND, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JOHNNY L. HUGHES, United MARYLAND U.S. JUDGES,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 KING, Circuit Decided: Judges, and December 20, 2016 HAMILTON, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Matthew Paul Phelps, OFFICE Baltimore, Maryland, for Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

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?