Cofield v. Graham

Opinion

USCA1 Opinion

October 20, 1994
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                               UNITED STATES OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

____________________

No. 94-1673

                               JUAN M. COFIELD, ET AL.,

                                     Appellants,

                                          v.

                                HARRY GRAHAM, ET AL.,

                                      Appellees.

____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                      [Hon. Patti B. Saris, U.S. District Judge]
                                            ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                  Cyr, Circuit Judge.
                                       _____________
                          Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge, and 
                                  ____________________
                                Stahl, Circuit Judge.
                                       _____________

                                 ____________________

            James E. Cofield Jr. and Juan M. Cofield on brief pro se.
            ____________________     _______________
            Robert Owen Resnick, Cullen & Resnick on brief for appellees.
            ___________________  ________________

____________________

____________________

Per  Curiam.   We have  carefully reviewed  the parties'
                 ___________

            briefs  and the  record  on appeal.    We conclude  that  the

            district  court  correctly  dismissed the  bankruptcy  appeal

            essentially  for the  reasons  stated in  the district  court

            memorandum and  order, In re  Malmart Mortgage Co.,  166 B.R.
                                   ___________________________

            499  (D. Mass.  1994).   We  add  that the  district  court's

            failure to  address in more particular  detail the bankruptcy

            court's order denying appellants' motion for recusal is of no

            moment  since appellants' complaint  was completely  based on

            their   unhappiness  and  disagreement  with  the  bankruptcy

            court's  rulings.   "[J]udicial  rulings  alone almost  never

            constitute  valid basis  for  a bias  or partiality  motion."

            Liteky v.  United States, 114 S. Ct. 1147, 1157 (1994).  And,
            ______     _____________

            mistakes  of law, even assuming  there were any,  are not, of

            themselves,  evidence  of bias.   Panzardi-Alvarez  v. United
                                              ________________     ______

            States,  879 F.2d 975, 984 n.7 (1st Cir. 1989), cert. denied,
            ______                                          ____________

            493 U.S. 1082 (1990).

                 The facts and  legal arguments are  adequately presented

            in the briefs and record and the decisional process would not

            be significantly  aided by  oral argument.   The request  for

            oral argument is, therefore, denied.
                                         _______

                 Affirmed.
                 _________