United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
                                     ___________

                                     No. 97-1860
                                     ___________

Melvin Leroy Tyler,                     *
                                        *
            Appellant,                  *
                                        *
      v.                                * Appeal from the United States
                                        * District Court for the
John Ashcroft; Dick Moore;              * Eastern District of Missouri.
James Purkett; Robert J. Krehbiel;      *
Mel Carnahan; Dora Schriro;             *      [UNPUBLISHED]
Pedro Cayabyab,                         *
                                        *
            Appellees.                  *
                                   ___________

                           Submitted: August 13, 1999
                               Filed: August 18, 1999
                                   ___________

Before BEAM, LOKEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.
                           ___________

PER CURIAM.

        Melvin Leroy Tyler appeals from numerous district court orders dismissing
parties and claims, and from the judgment entered against him by the district court1
after a bench trial on his retaliation-related 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims. Appellant argues
the entire United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit should disqualify itself


      1
        The Honorable E. Richard Webber, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Missouri.
because it has demonstrated bias and prejudice against him; he has also filed a motion
with this court asking that it recuse itself. Under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), a federal judge
should disqualify himself or herself “in any proceeding in which his [or her] impartiality
might reasonably be questioned.” Appellant cites to numerous cases in which this court
has ruled against him; however, he otherwise does not provide a reason compelling this
entire court to recuse itself from hearing this appeal, nor does he explain why a
reasonable observer would question this court’s impartiality. Thus, we reject his
request. See In re Kansas Pub. Employees Retirement Sys., 

, 1358 (8th
Cir. 1996) (describing standard for recusal under § 455); Hale v. Firestone Tire &
Rubber Co., 

, 1329 (8th Cir. 1985). After careful review of the record
and the parties’ submissions on appeal, we believe that appellant’s other arguments are
also without merit and that a full opinion would serve no precedential value. See 8th
Cir. R. 47B. Appellant’s pending motions are denied.

      Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

      A true copy.

             Attest:

                     CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.




                                           -2-