
    William C. BOND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Johnny L. HUGHES, United States Marshal; Unknown Named Maryland U.S. Judges, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 16-1778
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: December 12, 2016
    Decided: December 20, 2016
    William C. Bond, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew Paul Phelps, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
    Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 Fed. Appx. 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 Fed.Appx. 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, 129 S.Ct. 2230, 173 L.Ed.2d 1255 (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’I Ass’n for Stock Car 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, 2015 WL 7455822, 2016 WL 1391815 (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  