Filed: Feb. 22, 2002
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-50593 Conference Calendar JEAN ROYSDEN, Individually and on behalf of Peggy Roysden, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Brook Army Medical Center, Defendant-Appellee. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. SA-00-CV-407 - February 20, 2002 Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Jean Roysden, proceeding pro se and in forma paup
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-50593 Conference Calendar JEAN ROYSDEN, Individually and on behalf of Peggy Roysden, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Brook Army Medical Center, Defendant-Appellee. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. SA-00-CV-407 - February 20, 2002 Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Jean Roysden, proceeding pro se and in forma paupe..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-50593
Conference Calendar
JEAN ROYSDEN, Individually and on behalf of Peggy Roysden,
Deceased,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Brook Army Medical Center,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. SA-00-CV-407
--------------------
February 20, 2002
Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jean Roysden, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,
individually and on behalf of her mother, Peggy Roysden,
deceased, appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment
for defendant in this civil action filed under the Federal Tort
Claims Act (FTCA) against the United States of America, and more
specifically, the Brooke Army Medical Center, for medical
malpractice. The district court granted summary judgment on the
grounds that Roysden had not produced an expert witness who would
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 01-50593
-2-
testify as to the defendant’s alleged breach of the standard of
care. Roysden argues on appeal that the district judge erred in
failing to recuse himself after being subjected to misleading
statements which tainted his attitude toward her. She alleges
that her neighbor, who has strong connections to the Brooke Army
Medical Center, had somehow contacted the court and made negative
comments about her. Roysden does not challenge the basis for the
district court’s grant of summary judgment.
This court reviews a denial of a motion to recuse for abuse
of discretion. Trevino v. Johnson,
168 F.3d 173, 178 (5th Cir.
1999). A judge should recuse himself “in any proceeding in which
his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 455(a).
There is no reasonable basis to question the district
court’s impartiality in this case. Roysden has presented no
credible facts which would suggest any bias or reason for bias by
the court. Her speculations that her neighbors dislike her and
might have spread some “gossip” to the court in some undisclosed
manner do not provide a reasonable basis for questioning the
court’s impartiality requiring recusal. An objective, reasonable
view of the district court’s actions in this case reveals no
bias. The district court made every conceivable accommodation
for Roysden’s pro se status, including a limited appointment of
counsel to advise Roysden in an analysis of her case. The
district court granted Roysden’s numerous requests for extensions
of time to allow Roysden to secure counsel. The district court
No. 01-50593
-3-
even went so far as to direct opposing counsel to assist Roysden
in discovery matters.
Roysden contends that she could not afford the services of
an expert witness and thus judgment was rendered against her.
The district court had no authority to appoint an expert witness
for her. See Pedraza v. Jones,
71 F.3d 194 (5th Cir. 1995).
Roysden’s sole argument on appeal concerns the failure of
the district judge to recuse himself. This argument is
frivolous, and Roysden’s appeal is DISMISSED. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.