UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-1888
In Re: ANDREW CLIFFORD MOORE,
Debtor.
GEORGE E. MCDERMOTT,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
ANDREW CLIFFORD MOORE,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 00-2034
In Re: ANDREW CLIFFORD MOORE,
Debtor.
GEORGE E. MCDERMOTT,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
ANDREW CLIFFORD MOORE,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA-
00-190-PJM, BK-88-42746)
Submitted: January 18, 2001 Decided: January 23, 2001
Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
George E. McDermott, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Clifford Moore,
Appellee Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
In appeal No. 00-1888, George McDermott appeals from the dis-
trict court’s order denying his motion challenging the reassignment
of his case and requesting that Judge Messitte recuse himself from
McDermott’s case. Because McDermott failed to allege any partial-
ity arising from an extrajudicial source, In re Beard, 811 F.2d
818, 827 (4th Cir. 1987), we affirm the district court’s order
denying the motion.
Appeal No. 00-2034 is McDermott’s appeal from the district
court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order entering a
final decree and dismissing Andrew Moore’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy
case. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s memo-
randum opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we
affirm on the reasoning of the district court. McDermott v. Moore,
No. CA-00-190-PJM; BK-88-42746 (D. Md. July 24, 2000). We deny
McDermott’s motion for a directed verdict and his motion to recuse
three judges from this appeal. 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
3