eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
 2016-12

William Bond v. Johnny Hughes ( 2016 )


Menu:
 
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1778
WILLIAM C. BOND,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JOHNNY L. HUGHES, United       States   Marshal;      UNKNOWN   NAMED
MARYLAND U.S. JUDGES,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. David A. Faber, Senior District Judge.
(1:15-cv-00199-DAF)
Submitted:   December 12, 2016             Decided:    December 20, 2016
Before MOTZ and     KING,   Circuit   Judges,   and    HAMILTON,   Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William C. Bond, Appellant Pro Se.       Matthew Paul Phelps, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,            Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William       C.     Bond     appeals       from        the    district       court’s
November 24, 2015, order dismissing his civil action and the
court’s April 8, 2016, order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)
motion to alter or amend judgment, confining his appeal to the
court’s dismissal of count II of his complaint, which sought qui
tam relief on behalf of the Government under the False Claims
Act (FCA).    We affirm.
Count    II    of    Bond’s       complaint       was    subject     to   dismissal
because a pro se litigant may not pursue a qui tam action on
behalf of the Government under the FCA.                            See Gunn v. Credit
Suisse Grp. AG, 610 F. App’x 155, 157 (3d Cir. 2015); Nasuti v.
Savage Farms Inc., No. 14–1362,
    2015 WL 9598315
    , at *1 (1st Cir.
Mar. 12, 2015); Jones v. Jindal, 409 F. App’x 356 (D.C. Cir.
2011);   United     States       ex    rel.     Mergent       Servs.      v.   Flaherty,
    540 F.3d 89
    , 93 (2d Cir. 2008); Timson v. Sampson,
    518 F.3d 870
    ,
873-74 (11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam); Stoner v. Santa Clara Cty.
Office of Educ.,
    502 F.3d 1116
    , 1126-28 (9th Cir. 2007); United
States ex rel. Lu v. Ou,
    368 F.3d 773
    , 775-76 (7th Cir. 2004),
abrogated     on    other        grounds        by     United       States     ex.    rel
Eisenstein v.      City    of    New    York,
    556 U.S. 928
       (2009);   United
States v. Onan,
    190 F.2d 1
    , 6-7 (8th Cir. 1951).                           We also find
no reversible error in the district court’s denial of Bond’s
Rule 59(e) motion.          See Mayfield v. Nat’l Ass’n for Stock Car
2
Auto Racing, Inc.,
    674 F.3d 369
    , 378 (4th Cir. 2012) (stating
standard   of    review    and    circumstances     under      which   Rule   59(e)
motion may be granted).              Accordingly, we affirm the district
court’s orders.         Bond v. Hughes, No. 1:15-cv-00199-DAF (D. Md.
Nov. 24, 2015 & Apr. 8, 2016).
We deny Bond’s motions to recuse all Fourth Circuit judges
and   transfer    and     to    appoint   counsel    and    expedite    decision.
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
3