Filed: Dec. 20, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1778 WILLIAM C. BOND, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JOHNNY L. HUGHES, United States Marshal; UNKNOWN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.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1778 WILLIAM C. BOND, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JOHNNY L. HUGHES, United States Marshal; UNKNOWN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. A..
More
UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
