Mithun Banerjee v. Nationwide Recovery Service, Inc.

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: October 2, 2023
• Docket: 22-2323
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2323 Doc: 40 Filed: 10/02/2023 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-2323 Doc: 40 Filed: 10/02/2023 Pg: 2 of 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