Jamus Bryant v. United States of America

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-1532
JAMUS BRYANT,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:24-cv-02128-LMB-WBP)
Submitted: July 24, 2025 Decided: July 29, 2025
Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jamus Bryant, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Jamus Bryant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion to recuse
the district judge. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P.
54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The order
Bryant seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral
order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.* 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.
DISMISSED
* In his informal reply brief, Bryant asks that this appeal be construed as a petition
for a writ of mandamus. Even if we did so, we would find that mandamus relief is
unavailable because Bryant’s conclusory assertions of bias are insufficient to warrant
recusal. See Belue v. Leventhal, 640 F.3d 567, 572-73 (4th Cir. 2011); see also In re
Murphy-Brown, LLC, 907 F.3d 788, 795 (4th Cir. 2018) (explaining that mandamus
petitioner must show “clear and indisputable right to the requested relief” (internal
quotation marks omitted)).

-- 2 of 2 --