Mithun Banerjee v. NATIONWIDE RECOVERY SERVICE, INC., Resident Agent: Cogency Global Inc.

22-2323Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitSep 30, 2023

Full text

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-2323
MITHUN BANERJEE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
NATIONWIDE RECOVERY SERVICE, INC., Resident Agent: Cogency Global
Inc.,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Paula Xinis, District Judge. (8:20-cv-02751-PX)
Submitted: September 28, 2023 Decided: October 2, 2023
Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mithun Banerjee, Appellant Pro Se. Bradley Todd Canter, LAW OFFICES OF
RONALD S. CANTER, LLC, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Mithun Banerjee appeals the district court’s order granting Defendant’s motion for
summary judgment in his civil action alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act,
15 U.S.C. § 1681 to 1681x. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. In
addition to his challenge to the district court’s grant of summary judgment, Banerjee
challenges the district court judge’s refusal to recuse herself. We review a district court
judge’s recusal decision for abuse of discretion. United States v. Stone, 866 F.3d 219, 229
(4th Cir. 2017). Here, Banjeree’s asserted grounds for recusal amounted to mere
dissatisfaction with the district court’s unfavorable rulings, which is not a sufficient ground
for recusal. See Belue v. Leventhal, 640 F.3d 567, 572-74 (4th Cir. 2011) (discussing valid
bases for bias or partiality motion). The district court judge therefore did not abuse her
discretion in declining Banjeree’s request for recusal. Accordingly, we deny Banerjee’s
motion to appoint counsel and 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

-- 2 of 2 --

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.