William Gray v. Kim Bagley

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-1925

WILLIAM T. GRAY,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

KIM BAGLEY, Prince George County Maryland Public Schools;
EMORY WATERS, Prince George County Maryland Public Schools;
CURTIS EUGENE, Prince George County Maryland Public
Schools; ROSELYN HAWKINS, Prince George County Maryland
Public Schools; SYNTHIA SHILLING, Prince George County
Maryland Public Schools; KAREN H. REMINGTON, Prince George
County Maryland Public Schools; DENNIS P. MURPHY, Maryland
Department of Public Safety and Correction Services, Police
and Corrections Training Commissions; ALBERT LIEBNO,
Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correction
Services, Police and Corrections Training Commissions;
DENNIS P. MURPHY, Maryland Department of Public Safety and
Correction Services, Police and Corrections Training
Commissions; DANIEL J. ROE, Maryland Department of Public
Safety and Correction Services, Police and Corrections
Training Commissions; MARTIN O’MALLEY, Governor, State of
Maryland,

Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (8:11-cv-01117-JFM)

Submitted: January 25, 2012 Decided: February 9, 2012

Before AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William T. Gray, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Judah Baror, Linda
Hitt Thatcher, THATCHER LAW FIRM, Greenbelt, Maryland; Stuart
Milton Nathan, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND,
Pikesville, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2
PER CURIAM:

William T. Gray seeks to appeal the district court’s

orders granting the Defendants’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion

to dismiss his complaint and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)

motion and motion for recusal. On appeal, we confine our review

to the issues raised in Gray’s informal brief. See 4th Cir. R.

34(b). Because Gray’s informal brief does not challenge the

basis for the district court’s denial of his motion to recuse,

Gray has forfeited appellate review of that order. 1

Turning to the orders denying relief under Rules

12(b)(6) and 59(e), we have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Gray’s motions for

summary disposition 2 and affirm the district court’s orders for

the reasons stated by the district court. See Gray v. Bagley,

No. 8:11-cv-01117-JFM (D. Md. July 28, 2011 & Aug. 9, 2011). We

1
In any event, we note that Gray’s motion to recuse does
not assert any facts that raise any question regarding the
impartiality of the experienced district court judge. Rather,
fairly read, Gray’s assertion of bias is entirely predicated on
Gray’s dissatisfaction with the district court’s rulings and
management of the litigation. Thus, even had Gray properly
preserved appellate review of the denial of his recusal motion,
we would have no difficulty rejecting the claim on its merits.
2
To the extent Gray moves for summary disposition against
some Appellees for failure to file a response brief, we decline
to grant such a motion. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (noting that
Appellees are permitted, but not required, to file response
brief).

3
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

4