UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

GEORGE ROGER SIEGEL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

COLUMBIA PENTAGON CITY NATIONAL
ORTHOPEDIC HOSPITAL; SEUNG W.
PAIK, M.D.; MEREDITH MACLAY,
M.D.; FAIR RIDGE ORTHOPEDICS,
INCORPORATED; COLUMBIA HCA
                                                               No. 99-2350
HEALTHCARE; HCA HEALTH SERVICES
OF VIRGINIA, INCORPORATED;
NATIONAL HOSPITAL MEDICAL
CENTER, INCORPORATED; DONNA E.
SHALALA, Secretary of U.S.
Department of Health and Human
Services,
Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge.
(CA-98-1756-A)

Submitted: March 31, 2000

Decided: April 19, 2000

Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges,
and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL

George Roger Siegel, Appellant Pro Se. Peter King Stackhouse,
Arlington, Virginia; William Joseph Carter, Pamela S. Fox, CARR,
GOODSON, LEE & WARNER, P.C., Washington, D.C.; Roger Wil-
liam Heald, GODARD, WEST & ADELMAN, Fairfax, Virginia;
John Allen Blazer, Katherine Renea McMillen, CREWS & HAN-
COCK, Fairfax, Virginia; Thomas Mercer Ray, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appel-
lees.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

George Roger Siegel fell from a chair on December 7, 1996, and
suffered an injury to his wrist. This action is based on the treatment
he received from the doctors at the emergency room of the National
Hospital Medical Center, now known as Columbia Pentagon City
National Orthopedic Hospital. Siegel appeals the district court's entry
of judgment for all defendants and denial of several post-judgment
motions, as well as the district judge's refusal to disqualify himself
under 28 U.S.C. § 455 (1994).

We have thoroughly reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. The district court fully considered Siegel's federal claims, as
well as those based on state law, and properly granted judgment for
all defendants. We have reviewed for abuse of discretion the district
judge's denial of Siegel's motions that the judge disqualify himself.
United States v. DeTemple, 

, 283 (4th Cir. 1998), cert.
denied, ___ U.S. ___, 

 (U.S. May 24, 1999) (No.
98-8960). Siegel's complaints concerning the district judge's rulings
and statements do not support his motion for disqualification. See

                    2
Liteky v. United States, 

, 555 (1994) (disqualifying bias
normally must result from something outside the courtroom). There-
fore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the
motions to disqualify itself. Nor are the court's denials of Siegel's
motions for clarification and reconsideration an abuse of its discre-
tion. See Pacific Ins. Co. v. American Nat'l Fire Ins. Co., 

, 402 (4th Cir. 1998) (Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion), cert. denied,
___ U.S. ___, 

 (U.S. Jan. 19, 1999) (No. 98-742);
National Org. for Women v. Operation Rescue, 

, 669 (4th
Cir. 1995) (Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process. We affirm the judg-
ment below as well as the district court's denial of the motions for
reconsideration and refusal to disqualify itself.

AFFIRMED

                    3