Donald Hinton v. P. McCabe, No. 19-7292 (4th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-7292 DONALD LEE HINTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. P. MCCABE, Defendant - Appellee, and DANIEL CALHOUN, M.D.; EASTER, Medical Technician LVCC, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3:16-cv-00222-JAG-RCY) Submitted: February 28, 2020 Decided: March 11, 2020 Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donald Lee Hinton, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Donald L. Hinton appeals the district court’s order denying his motions for recusal of the district court judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(b) (2018), and for relief from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2018) complaint, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Hinton’s informal brief does not challenge the district court’s dispositive conclusions regarding his Rule 60(b) motion, Hinton has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order denying that motion. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). Turning to Hinton’s recusal motion, we have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion. See Kolon Indus. Inc. v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 748 F.3d 160, 167 (4th Cir. 2014) (noting standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Hinton v. McCabe, No. 3:16-cv-00222-JAG-RCY (E.D. Va. Aug. 27, 2019). We deny Hinton’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.