Barbara Tangwall; Donna Uphues v. WILLIAM R. SATTERBERG, Jr.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BARBARA TANGWALL; DONNA
UPHUES,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
WILLIAM R. SATTERBERG, Jr., et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 21-35049
D.C. No. 4:20-cv-00040-SLG
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Alaska
Sharon L. Gleason, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 15, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
Barbara Tangwall and Donna Uphues appeal pro se from the district court’s
judgment in their action alleging federal and state law claims. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We may affirm on any basis supported by the
record. Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JUN 29 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-35049
Denial of appellants’ motion to recuse the district court judge was not an
abuse of discretion because appellants failed to establish any basis for recusal. See
28 U.S.C. § 455(a) (“Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States
shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might
reasonably be questioned.”); Clemens v. U.S. Dist. Court, 428 F.3d 1175, 1178
(9th Cir. 2005) (test for disqualification under § 455(a)); see also United States v.
Johnson, 610 F.3d 1138, 1147 (9th Cir. 2010) (standard of review).
In their briefs, appellants have failed to raise, and have therefore abandoned,
any challenge to the district court’s order awarding attorney’s fees. See Acosta-
Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 1992) (issues not supported by
argument in pro se briefs are deemed abandoned).
We reject as meritless appellants’ contentions concerning appellees’ notices
of appearance and purported conflicts of interest.
We lack jurisdiction to consider the underlying judgment because appellants
failed to file a timely notice of appeal as to that judgment. See Fed. R. App. P.
4(a)(1)(A) (notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days from judgment).
Appellants’ motion to strike (Docket Entry No. 36) and request to strike, set
forth in their supplemental brief, are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --