UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1750
AKIL RASHIDI BEY, Ex rel Aikdo Graves, Moorish American
Moslem National, in full life, All Rights Reserved, Without
Prejudice, Tscnocmoco Territory,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
RICHMOND REDEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING AUTHORITY,
Defendant – Appellee,
and
WILLITTE C. WILLIAMS, in her official and personal
capacity; TAMMY L. GRUBB, in her official and personal
capacity; CALANDRA M. TROTTER, in her official and personal
capacity; GENESIS PROPERTIES, in their official and
personal capacity; JEFFERSON TOWNHOMES, in their official
and personal capacity; VANESSADIETERLY, in their official
and personal capacity; JOYWARFIELD, in their official and
personal capacity,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:13-cv-00464-HEH)
Submitted: October 22, 2014 Decided: October 24, 2014
Before MOTZ, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Akil Rashidi Bey, Appellant Pro Se. Steven George Popps, Brian
Emory Pumphrey, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Akil Bey appeals the district court’s order dismissing
his complaint for failure to state a claim. On appeal, Bey
argues that the district judge should have recused himself,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455 (2012). Because Bey never presented
a motion for recusal to the district court, we review his claim
under the plain error standard. Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(b); see
United States v. Schreiber, 599 F.2d 534, 535-36 (3d Cir. 1979)
(holding that where § 455 recusal was not raised before trial
judge, the standard of review is plain error). Our review of
the record reflects no bias or conflicts of interest on the part
of the district judge. Accordingly, we affirm the district
court’s order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
3