Bishop Dewayne v. JP Morgan Mortgage Acquisition, No. 20-1889 (4th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-1889 BISHOP RUBEN DEWAYNE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JP MORGAN MORTGAGE ACQUISITION ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., CORP.; MORTGAGE Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (3:19-cv-03376-JMC) Submitted: November 17, 2020 Decided: November 19, 2020 Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bishop Rueben Dewayne, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew Adams Abee, Carmen Harper Thomas, NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Bishop Ruben Dewayne appeals the district court’s orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Dewayne’s civil action, and denying his motion for reconsideration. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Dewayne’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, he has forfeited appellate review of the court’s orders. 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.”). On appeal, Dewayne also contends that the district court judge should have recused herself. Because Dewayne did not move the district court for recusal, we review his claim only for plain error. See United States v. Minard, 856 F.3d 555, 557 (8th Cir. 2017). Dewayne fails to establish that recusal was required. See Belue v. Leventhal, 640 F.3d 567, 572-74 (4th Cir. 2011) (noting that judicial rulings are rarely valid basis for bias or partiality motion). Thus, the district court’s failure to recuse did not amount to error, plain or otherwise. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. We also deny Dewayne’s motion to strike counsel for Appellees’ appearances. 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.
