Sun Life Assurance Co. v. Tinsley , 266 F. App'x 228 ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 07-1347
    SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA (US),
    Plaintiff,
    versus
    SANDRA TINSLEY,
    Defendant - Appellee,
    LOUIS   A.   SMITH,   in   his   capacity   as
    administrator of the estate of Evelyn Margaret
    Turner, deceased,
    Defendant - Appellant,
    and
    LOUISE G. SMITH, in her individual capacity,
    and in her capacity as co-administrator of the
    estate of Evelyn Margaret Turner, deceased;
    HUTCHERSON FUNERAL HOME, INCORPORATED,
    Defendants.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Lynchburg.  Norman K. Moon, District
    Judge. (6:06-cv-00010-NKM)
    Submitted:   December 14, 2007            Decided:   January 8, 2008
    Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Louis A. Smith, Appellant Pro Se.     Sandra Tinsley, Lynchburg,
    Virginia, Appellee Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    - 2 -
    PER CURIAM:
    Louis A. Smith appeals the district court’s order finding
    a change of beneficiary form ineffective and granting judgment for
    Sandra Tinsley in this civil action.   We have reviewed the record,
    including the trial, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we
    affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.   See Sun Life
    Assurance Co. of Canada (US) v. Tinsley, No. 6:06-cv-00010-NKM
    (W.D. Va. Apr. 4, 2007).   To the extent Smith alleges the district
    court was biased against him, he has failed to show grounds for
    relief.   See 
    28 U.S.C. §§ 144
    , 455 (2000); Sine v. Local No. 922
    Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 
    882 F.2d 913
    , 914-15 (4th Cir. 1989)
    (giving standard for affidavit of recusal);    Shaw v. Martin, 
    733 F.2d 304
    , 308 (4th Cir. 1984) (providing basis for recusal on
    grounds of prejudice and bias). We dispense with oral argument
    because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in
    the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
    decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    - 3 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-1347

Citation Numbers: 266 F. App'x 228

Judges: Motz, Gregory, Shedd

Filed Date: 1/8/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024