Tigress McDaniel v. Green Dot Corporation

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: March 31, 2025
• Docket: 24-2083
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-2083 Doc: 13 Filed: 03/31/2025 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-2083

TIGRESS SYDNEY ACUTE MCDANIEL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

GREEN DOT CORPORATION; GREEN DOT BANK; FINGERHUT; EXPERIAN DATA CORPORATION; EXPERIAN SERVICES CORP.; TRANSUNION DATA SOLUTIONS LLC; TRANSUNION, LLC; WEBBANK; BLUESTEM SALES, INC.,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:23-cv-00406-D-RN)

Submitted: March 27, 2025 Decided: March 31, 2025

Before THACKER and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tigress Sydney Acute McDaniel, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-2083 Doc: 13 Filed: 03/31/2025 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Tigress Sydney Acute McDaniel appeals the district court’s orders (a) dismissing

without prejudice McDaniel’s complaint against Defendant Bluestem Sales, Inc.—the lone

Defendant that remained in the underlying civil action—for failure to serve process

(“Dismissal Order”); and (b) denying McDaniel’s motion for Judge Dever’s recusal

(“Recusal Order”). We affirm.

In this court, McDaniel’s only argument is that reversal is appropriate because Judge

Dever should have recused himself from this case. Because McDaniel does not otherwise

assign error to, or show error in, the court’s ruling that she failed to serve process on

Defendant Bluestem Sales, Inc.—a ruling that finds ample support in the record—

McDaniel has forfeited appellate review of the Dismissal Order. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b);

Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important

document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that

brief.”).

As to the Recusal Order, we discern no abuse of discretion in Judge Dever declining

to recuse himself in this matter. See Kolon Indus. Inc. v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co.,

748 F.3d 160, 167 (4th Cir. 2014) (providing standard of review). McDaniel’s primary

complaint is with Judge Dever’s adverse rulings in this and her other pro se civil cases, as

well as the judge’s acknowledgement of her litigation history. As the district court

explained, neither of these grounds is a viable basis for recusal. See Liteky v. United States,

510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994) (“[J]udicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis

for a bias or partiality motion.”); see id. (“[O]pinions formed by the judge on the basis of

2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-2083 Doc: 13 Filed: 03/31/2025 Pg: 3 of 3

facts introduced or events occurring in the course of the current proceedings, or of prior

proceedings, do not constitute a basis for a bias or partiality motion unless they display a

deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.”).

Accordingly, we affirm the appealed-from orders. See McDaniel v. Green Dot

Corp., 5:23-cv-00406-D-RN (E.D.N.C. Oct. 15, 2024; Oct. 21, 2024). 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